PAGENO="0001"
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE,* RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 20, 1977
[No. 4]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Science and Technology
R1JT~ERS L)~Wj~HOOL UBRARV
CAMDE4~J~ 08102
C~OVERNME1~(T DOCUMENT
/i~~2r
11.5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
92-5600 WASHINGTON: 1977 . *\2;fl
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OLIN E. TEAGUE, Texas, Chairman
DON FUQUA, Florida
WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama
ROBERT A. ROE, New Jersey
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
DALE MILFORD, Texas
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York
RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
JIM LLOYD, California
JEROME A. AMBRO, New York
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee
JAMES J. BLANQHARD, Michigan
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
STEPHEN L. NEAL, North Carolina
THOMAS J. DOWNEY, New York
DOUG WALGREN, Pennsylvania
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama
DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas
BOB GAM~A~E, Texas
ANTHONY C. BEILENSON, California
ALBERT GORE, JR., Tennessee
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma
DON FUQUA, Florida
TOM HARKIN, Iowa
ROBERT (BOB) KRUEGER, Texas
RONNIE G. FLIPPO, Alabama
MIKE McCORMACK, Washington
GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California
JOHN W. WYDLER, New York
LARRY WINN, JR., Kansas
LOUIS FREY, JR., Florida
BARRY M. GOLDWATER, JR., California
GARY A. MYERS, Pennsylvania
HAMILTON FISH, JR., New York
MANUEL LUJAN, JR., New Mexico
CARL D. PURSELL, Michigan
HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
ELDON RUDD, Arizona
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
HAROLD C. HOLLENBECK, New Jersey
ROBERT K. DORNAN, California
EDWIN B. FORSYTHE, New Jersey
JOHN L. SWIGERT, Jr., Executive Director
HAROLD A. GOULD, Deputy Director
PHILIP B. YEAGER, Counsel
FRANK R. HAMMILL, Jr., Counsel
JAMES E. WILsoN, Technical Consultant
WILLIAM G. WELLS, Jr., Technical Consultant
RALPH N. REAn, Technical Consultant
ROBERT C. KETCHAM, Counsel
JOHN P. ANDELIN, Jr., Science Consultant
JAMES W. SPENSLEY, Counsel
REGINA A. DAVIS, Chief Clerk
MICHAEL A. SUPERATA, Minority Counsel
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND TECHNOLOGY
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas, Chairman
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
WITNESSES
Page
April 20, 1977:
Mr. Philip Smith, Assistant Director for Natural Resources and Com-
mercial Services on behalf of Dr. Frank Press, Director-designate,
Office of Science and Technology Policy 25
Dr. Vincent McKelvey, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, accompanied
by Dr. James Devine, Assistant Director 50
Dr. Alfred Eggers, Assistant Director for Research Applications,
National Science Foundation, accompanied by Dr. Charles Thiel,
Director, Division of Advanced Environmental Research and
Technology 66
Hon. Glenn Anderson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, accompanied by Councilman David Cunningham, city
of Los Angeles 94
Dr. James Skehan, director, Weston Observatory, Boston College,
accompanied by Dr. Edward F. Chiburis, on behalf of the Associa-
tion of Professional Geological Scientists 103
Dr. Ralph Turner, professor of sociology, UCLA, and former Chair-
man, Panel on the Public Policy Implications of Earthquake Pre-
diction, the National Academy of Sciences 144
APPENDIX
Submitted statement of Prof. Nathan Newmark, Chairman, Science
Adviser's Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and Hazard
Mitigation 150
General Accounting Office letter regarding earthquake hazards reduction
legislation 168
Submitted statement. of Prof. Carl L. Monismith, chairman, department of
civil engineering, University of California, Berkeley 173
Letter from Mr. James A. Cook, executive vice president, California
Business Properties Association 178
(III)
PAGENO="0004"
PAGENO="0005"
EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION
WEDN:EsDAY, APRIL 20, 1977
HOUSE. OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CoMMIrr1~ ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SUBCOMMITrEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:53 a.m., in room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ray Thornton (chairman
of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Representatives Thornton (presiding), Brown, Hollenbeck,
and Dornan.
Also present: Thomas R. Kramer, science consultant.
Mr. THORNTON. Today the Subcommittee on Science Research and
Technology is gathering information concerning legislation of earth-
quake hazards reduction. We believe that such legislation is desirable
and we want to develop laws as effective as possible.
Following this hearing, on Tuesday, April 26, the subcommittee will
mark up legislation and I expect a full committee markup will be held
shortly thereafter.
We are able to build today on past efforts. During the last session of
Congress this subcommittee held 3 days of hearings on earthquakes
and reported an earthquake hazards reduction bill. The bill reached
the floor of the House very late in the session and was not voted the
necessary two-thirds majority when it was considered under suspen-
sion of the House rules.
In the Senate an earthquake hazards reduction bill was passed last
year. Further Senate hearings were held in the Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation just yesterday. Senator Cranston
has been a strong driving force behind this legislation in the Senate.
This year in the House nearly 40 Members have cosponsored earth-
quake bills. I might mention especially Mr. Brown of this subcommit-
tee and Mr. Anderson who will present testimony today.
The, administration has acted energetically in earthquake hazards
reduction, both on its own initiative and in cooperation with this sub-
committee. An advisory committee chaired by Dr. Nathan Newmark
reported a recommended earthquake program for the U.S. Geological
Survey and the National Science Foundation last fall.
Dr. Newmark is unable to be with us today, but he has submitted
written testimony and without objection I would like to have it incor-
porated in the record of this hearing along with portions of the New-
mark report, "Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation-Op-
tions for USGS and NSF Programs."
(1)
PAGENO="0006"
2
Largely as a result of the Newmark committee report, the House,
the Senate, and the administration are all considering spending the
same amounts of money for earthquake research. The three parties
also agree that the purpose of the bill should be to help reduce the
hazards of earthquakes. While it is clear that a great deal of research
is needed, all parties are looking past research to the implementation
of knowledge in actually reducing the harm that results from earth-
quakes.
The two broad issues in which agreement has not yet been reached
are (1) what steps should the Federal Government take or sponsor
to implement what is known about how to reduce the hazards of earth-
quakes, and (2) how should the Federal Government organize itself
to administer an earthquake hazards reduction program?
The legislation before members today is H.R.. 35. This bill has been
reintroduced as H.R. 3551, H.R. 3552, H.R. 4190, and H.R. 6004. H.R.
35 is essentially the same bill that was considered in the House last
year, exeept that the authorization amounts have been increased to
reflect the administration request for fiscal year 1978 and the recom-
mendations of the Newmark report.
The President has designated Dr. Frank Press as his science adviser.
We are extremely fortunate in that designation because Dr. Press is
an expert in earth sciences and appeared as a witness last year before
this subcommittee. Dr. Press' office has worked closely with the sub-
committee staff on earthquake legislation in recent weeks. Mr. Philip
Smith of that office will testify today. We are looking forward to his
testimony and to further cooperation with the administration.
[A copy of H.R. 35 follows:]
PAGENO="0007"
3
95Th CONGRESS
1ST SEssioN H Re 35
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 4, 1977
l~'1r. TEAGUE (for himself and Mr. BROWN of California) introduced the fol-
low bill; which was referred to the Comiin~tec on Science and Tech-
nology
A BILL
To reduce the hazards of earthquakes, and for )tner ~
1 Be it enacted by the Sei~ate ond house of 1?epresenta-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the "Earthquake ilazards
5 Reduction Act of 1977".
6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
7 The Congress finds that:
8 (a) Earthquakes have caused, and can cause in the
9 future, enormous loss of life, injury, destruction of property,
10 and economic and social di~riiption. Although some St:~es
I
PAGENO="0008"
4
2
1 are particularly vulnerable, all 50 States may suffer damag-
2 ing earthquakes.
3 (b) Loss of life, property destruc~on, and economic
4 and social disruption from future earthquakes can be sub-
5 stantially reduced through the development and implementa-
6 tion of (artliquake hazards reduction measures, including
7 improved construction methods and practices, prediction
8 techniques and early-warning systems, coordinated emer-
9 gency preparedness plans, and public education and involve-
10 ment programs.
11 (c) In order to insure that appropriate measures are
12 developed and implemented, it is necessary to institute
13 through public and private efforts a coordinated and compre-
14 hensive national program of earthquake hazards reduction.
15 The expertise required to address the many facets of earth-
16 quake hazards reduction is distributed throughout the public
17 and private sectors, Although concentration of this expertise
18 is not desirable, its coordination is required for a successful
19 program of earthquake hazards reduction.
20 (d) Recent discoveries in the earth sciences promise
21 development of iiiethods of earthquake prediction. Further
22 research in the fields of geology and geophysics is needed to
23 realize this promise. The consensus of experts in earthquake
24 studies is that a well-funded seismological research program
25 in earthquake predicr!on could provide data adequate for the
PAGENO="0009"
5
3
1 design, within 10 years, of an operational capability that
2 would be able to predict the time, place, magnitude, and
3 physical effects of earthquakes in selected areas of the United
4 States. In addition to earthquake prediction rescartli itself,
5 regular, careful, scientific evaluation of ~ iIh quake p1eli(-
6 tious will be needed to insure the effetive development (~1
7 earthquake prediction capabilities.
8 (`e) To realize the benefits of earthquake prediction
9 capabihties and to use present knowledge of earthquakes
10 effectively, more knowledge of engineering and social be-
11 havior is required. Research in the fields of economics,
12 sociology, law, and engineering is needed.
13 (f) The implementation of earthquake hazards reduc-
14 tion measures would, as an added benefi t, also reduce the
15 risk of loss, destruction, and disruption from other natural
16 hazards and manmade hazards, including hurricanes, for-
17 nadoes, accidents, explosions, landslides, building and struc-
18 tural cave-ins, and fires.
19 (g) Because severe earthquakes are a worldwide prob-
20 lem but occur infrequently in any one nation, international
21 cooperation is necessary for mutual learning from limited
22 experiences.
23 SEC. 3. PURPOSE.
24 It is the purpose of the Congress in *this Act to reduce
25 the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the
PAGENO="0010"
6
4
1 United Stales through the establishment and maintenance
2 of an effective earthquake hazards reduction progTam.
3 SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
4 As used in this Act-
5 (1) the term "Program" means the National Earth-
6 quake Hazards Reduction Program established by this
7 Act;
8 (2) the term "agency" means any department,
9 part of a department, independent agency, or other es-
10 tablishment in the executive branch of the United States
11 Government;
12 (3) the term "Committee" means the National Ad-
13 visory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction
14 established by this Act;
15 (4) the term "Office" means the Office of Earth-
16 quake Hazards Reduction established by this Act;
17 (5) the term "State" means any State of the United
18 States, the District of Columbia, or any other territory
19 or possession of the United States;
20 (6) the term "earthquake prediction" means a
21 prediction in definite or probabilistic terms, of the time,
22 place, and magnitude of an earthquake; and
23 (7) the term "earthquake warning" means a rec-
24 onimendation that normal life routines should be changed
25 for a time because ~in earthquake is believed imminent.
PAGENO="0011"
7
5
I SEC. 5. NATIONAL EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION
2 PROGRAM.
3 (a) ESTABLISIIMENT.-III order to reduce loss of life,
4 property destruction, and economic and social disruption
5 from future earthquakes, the President shall establish and
6 direct to be maintained in accordance with the provisions
7 of this Act-
8 (1) a coordinated National Earthquake Hazards
9 Reduction Program, which shall be administered as set
forth in subsection (b) and shall include each of the
11 elements described in subsection (c)
12 (2) an Office of Earthquake Hazards Reduction,
13 which shall be part of an existing agency, and shall
14 be administered as set forth in subsection (b) (2)
15 (3) a National Advisory Committee on Earthquake
16 Hazards Reduction which shall be constituted and ad-
17 ministered as set forth in subsection (b) (3) ; and
18 (4) an Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Board
19 composed of scientists, representing the most knowl-
20 edgeable experts in various disciplines involved in earth
21 sciences related to earthquake studies, whose functions,
22 as described in subsection (c) (1), shall be part of the
23 Program.
24 (b) ADMINISTRATION~-
25 (1) PROGRAM.-The President shall, by rule,
PAGENO="0012"
8
6
1 within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
2 Act-
3 (A) identify the agency which shall contain
4 the Office of Earthquake Hazards Reduction; and
5 (B) assign and specify the role and responsi-
6 bility of the LTnited States Geological Survey, the
7 National Science Foundation, and each other
8 agency iii the Program, including the responsibility
for unified review of the Program budget.
10 (2) OFFJOE OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS REDTJ(J-
11 TION.-The Office shall have the following duties and
12 any others that may he assigned to it by the President:
13 (A) to develop and maintain a Program plan,
14 which shall iiiclude a description of: the overall
15 strategy of the Program, the elements of the Pro-
16 gram, agency responsibilities in the Program, a de-
17 tailed Program budget, and other information
18 deemed pertinent; and to present such Program
19 plan to the Congress within 180 days after con-
20 stitution of the Committee;
21 (B) to provide staffing and other assistance to
22 the Committee;
(C) to coordinate the earthquake activities of
all agencies, with particular attention to those agen-
25 des specified in paragraph (4) of this subsection;
PAGENO="0013"
9
7
1. (D) to provide for cooperation and coordina-
2 tion with interested governmental entities in all
3 States, particularly those containing `areas of high
4 or moderate seismic risk; and
5 (E) to provide for cooperation `and coordination
6 with private interests, including the insurance and
7 construction industries, concerned with earthquake
8 hazards reduction.
9 Activities undertaken by the Oflice in performance of the
10 duties specified in subparag'raphs (0), (D), and (E)
11 shall include interagency meetings among those agencies
12 with responsibilities in the Program. Activities `shall also
13 include meetings among representatives of any or all
14 groups interested in earthquake hazards reduction, in-
15 eluding private industry, State and local government,
16 and the Federal Government.
17 (3) NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EARTH-
18 QUAKE HAZARDS REDUCTION.-
19 (A) The President shall designate the chairman
20 and other members of the Committee. The `Commit-
21 tee shall have not fewer than ten members, including
22 persons concerned with earthquake hazards reduc-
23 tion who are representative of the research corn-
24 munity (including the design professions), private
25 industry (including insurance. `and construction),
PAGENO="0014"
10
8
and governnient (Federal, State, aiid local) , and
2 shall include qualified individuals experienced in
3 earthquake hazards reductioii planning, implementa-
4 tion, OF pi'epaiedness.
5 (B) The Comniittee shall serve as an advisory
6 body to the Office. to review and advise on the
7 ~)rogress, implementation, and coordination of the
8 Program and shall perform such other duties as the
9 President may assign.
10 (C) At least annually the Program plan shall
11 be submitted to the Committee, and the Committee
12 shall evaluate the plan.
13 (D) The annual report required by section 6 of
14 this Act shall be submitted to the Committee before
15 the report is in final form and the Committee shall
16 comment on the report.
17 (E) Membership on the Committee shall be
18 for staggered, rotating terms.
19 (F) Members of the Committee shall be reim-
20 bursed for actual expenses incurred in the perform-
21 ance of their duties.
22 (4) AGENCY INVOLVEMEXT.-Agencies which may
23 be assigned responsibilities in the Program shall
24 include-
PAGENO="0015"
ii
9
1 (A) the Department of Commerce (National
2 Bureau of Standards, National Oceanic and At-
3 mospheric Administration)
4 (B) the Department of l)efense (Defense Civil
5 Preparedness Agency)
6 (C) the Department of Housing and Urban
7 i)evelopment (Federal Disaster Assistance Adniin-
8 istration~~
9 (D) the Department of the Interior (United
10 States Geological Survey)
11 (E) the Energy Research and Development
12 Administration;
13 (F) the General Services Administration
14 (Federal Preparedness Agency)
15 (0) the National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
16 ministration;
17 (H) the National Science Foundation;
18 (I) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
19 (J) the Office of Science and Technology
20 Policy; and
21 (K) the Veterans' Administration.
22 (c) PROGRAM ELEMENTS.-The Program shall include
23 each of the following elements:
24 (1) PHYSICAL STTJDIES-Studies of the nature
PAGENO="0016"
12
10
and behavior of the Earth to promote understanding of
2 earthquakes and to form a knowledge base for earth-
3 quake hazards reduction, including-
4 (A) development of methods of earthquake
5 prediction with the objective of making official
6 earthquake warnings feasible;
7 (B) development of methods of determining
8 the likelihood of earthquakes in all States with the
9 objective of zonation and microzonation of the States
10 into areas of gTeater or lesser earthquake risk;
11 (0) development of theories, devices, and prac-
12 tices designed to promote understanding of the
13 iiiodification or control of earthquakes;
14 (D) basic aiid applied research in tectonics,
15 seismology, and geology; and
16 (E) development of instruments, systems, corn-
17 puter programs, and theories for the collection
18 analysis, storage, and distribution of physical data
19 related to earthquakes.
20 For purposes of subparagraph (A) the Earthquake
21 Prediction Evaluation Board shall evaluate individual
22 earthquake predictions, compile and maintain a public
23 record of the performance of prediction methods and
24 persons who make predictions, and issue authenticated
PAGENO="0017"
.13
11
i earthquake predictions if aiid wheii earthquake predic-
2 lion becomes a sufficiently reliable science.
3 (2) STIIUCT U1~AL STUIIIES.-Studies of structural
4 matters related to earthquakes, including-
5 (A) the development of economical design and
6 construction procedures to make new and existing
7 structures earth~1uake resistant;
8 (B) the characterization of the earthquake vul-
9 nerability of individual structures, groups of struc-
10 tures, and construction types; and
11 (C) the development of improved methods of
12 earthquake engineering analysis.
13 (3) SOCIAL, LEGAL, AND ECONOMIC EESEARCII.-
14 Research into social, legal, and economic aspects of
15 earthquake hazards, including-
16 (A.) time identification of groups of people par-
17 ticularly vulnerable to the hazards of earthquakes;
18 (B) the relationship between laws (including
19 tax laws) and earthquake hazards;
20 (C) the relationship between insurance and
21 earthquake hazards;
22 (D) the societal effects of earthquakes;
23 (E) the behavioral and psychological effects
24 of earthquakes on individuals;
92-560 Q - 77 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
14
12
(F) the social and economic effects of earth-
2 quake warnings and predictions; and
3 (G) risk management techniques and methods
4 for making decisions under uncertainty.
5 (4) IMPLEMENTATI0N.-Puttillg knowledge con-
6 cerning earthquakes to use in reducing the hazards of
7 earthquakes by means including-
8 (A) development of model building codes, rec-
9 ommended building standards, recommended `build-
10 ing regulations, and model zoning provisions related
11 to earthquakes for use by the Federal Government,
12 States, localities, trade associations, and others;
13 (B) development of recommended regulations
14 to govern the practices of corporations or individ-
15 uals offering services which reduce or are asserted
16 to reduce the damaging effects of earthquakes;
17 (0) education of the public, including State and
is local officials, in areas of earthquake risk concerning
19 earthquake hazards reduction including earthquake
20 phenomena, risk assessment, ways to reduce the
21 adverse consequences of an earthquake, pre-event
22 planning, warning dissemination, and emergency
23 services;
24 (D) assistance to States, localities, businesses,
25 and individuals in identifying locations and structures
PAGENO="0019"
15
13
which are especially susceptible to earthquake
2 damage;
3 (E) assistance to States in carrying out their
4 responsibilities under section 201 of the Disaster
5 Relief Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5131), by making
6 available the results of research and other activities
7 undertaken under this Act;
8 (F) recommendations for legislation to improve
9 the Program;
(0) maintenance of an earthquake information
11 ~1earinghouse to provide construction design a.nd
12 analysis information, planning aids, representative
13 plans for protecting large hazardou,s facilities such
14 as natural gas lines or dams, sample earthquake
15 evacuation plans, earthquake zonation maps, and
16 other pertinent information;
17 (II) efforts to insure that nath~nal needs for
18 people trained in specialties related to earthquake
19 hazards reduction are met (and for this purpose
20 the use of persons for whom earthquake hazards
21 reduction is an avocation should be considered);
22 and
23 (I) an analysis of the disaster preparedness of
24 State and local units of government in areas of high
PAGENO="0020"
16
14
1 seismic risk, a.nd the submission of such analysis to
2 Congress.
3 (5) OTHER ELEMENTS.-
4 (A) Studies of foreign experience with all
5 aspects of earthquakes; and
6 (B) Postearthquake investigations of all aspects
7 of actual major earthquakes.
8 SEC. 6. ANNUAL REPORT.
9 The President shall, within ninety days after the end of
10 each fisčal year, submit an annual report to the Congress
11 describing and evaluating progress achieved in reducing
12 the risks of earthquake hazards. Each such report shall
13 include-
14 (1) an account of the earthquake-related activities
15 and expenditures of each agency involved in the Pro-
16 gram during the preceding fiscal year;
17 (2) an assessment of the effect of Federal activities
18 on earthquake hazards;
19 (3) any recommendations for legislative or other
20 action; and
21 (4) any comments which individual members of
22 the Committee may wish to add.
23 SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
24 (a) GENERAL.-There are authorized to be appropri-
25 ated to the President to carry out the provisions of sections
26 5 and 6 of this Act (in addition to any authorizations for
PAGENO="0021"
17
15
1 similar purposes included in other Acts and the authoriza-
2 tions set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section),
3 not to exceed $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Septem-
4 ber 30, 1978, not to exceed $2,000,000 for the fiscal year
5 ending September 30, 1979, and not to exceed $2,000,000
6 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1 980.
7 (b) UNITED STATES c~EOLOGTCATJ SURVEY.-Tlicre are
8 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior
9 for the purposes of carrying out section 5 (c) of this Act
10 such sums as may he necessary for the period beginning
11 October 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1980, except
12 that the total amount authorized for such Purposes or similar
13 purposes by all Acts shall not exceed-
14 (1) $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Sop-
15 tember 30, 1978;
16 (2) $38,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
17 tember 30, 1979; or
18 (3) $47,000,000 for the fiscal year ending Sep-
19 tember 30, 1980.
20 (c) NATIONAL SCIENCE FOTINDATION.-There are au-
21 thorized to be appropriated to the National Science Founda-
22 tion for the purposes of carrying out section 5 (c) of this
23 Act such sums as may be necessary for the period heginnin~
24 October 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1980, except
25 that the total amount authorized for such purposes or similar
26 purposes by all Acts shall not exceed.-
PAGENO="0022"
cc cc cc
CO
C)
c~
C) C) C)
C)
C
S
CC
(N C~
cc ci:~
(N
95TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION ~
A BILL
10 I'e(lnce the hazards of earthquakes, and for
othei~ purposes.
By Mr. TEAGUE and Mr. BIIOWN of California
JANUARY 4, 1977
Referred to the Committee on Science and Tečlinoiogy
LcD
cc
cc
CC CC CC
cc cc cc
E E
I) C) C)
PAGENO="0023"
19
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Hollenbeek, would you like permission to in-
elude remarks?
Mr. HOLLENBECK. Yes; I would.
Mr. ThORNTON. Without objection, your remarks will be included.
PAGENO="0024"
20
Opening Remarks of Hon. Harold Hollenbeck
Subcommittee on Science, Research & Technology
Hearings on Legislation for Earthouake Hazards Reduction
April 20,1977
I would like to join Representative Thornton in stressing the
importance of the legislation we are about to consider. As mentioned,
earthquake hazard reduction legislation was given considerable attention
last year, but failed to receive the needed votes when it was brought
up during the final hours of the 94th Congress. This year, however,
Congressional support has been widespread and the Administration has
shown a positive concern fot the passage of such legislation. I look
forward to receiving today's testimony and to providdng our country
with a program that would reduce the hazards ansociated with earthquakes.
PAGENO="0025"
21
I would like to recognize Mr. Brown for such remarks as he may
wish to make.
Mr. BROWN. No thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Brown, once again I would like to thank you
for your strong leadership and support of this very important legis-
lation.
Our first witness for today, Dr. Frank Press, is unavoidably pre-
vented from appearing before our subcommittee for two reasons. First,
we started late-or maybe that is second. First there is a Cabinet
meeting in which he is presently involved and he is unable to be here.
He might have been able to attend these hearings had we held them
at the originally scheduled time. But Mr. Philip Smith, Assistant Di-
rector for Natural Resources and Commercial Services is familiar with.
the statement which Dr. Press had prepared for submission to the
subcommittee.
I would like to recognize Mr. Smith at this time.
[Biographical sketches of Dr. Frank Press and Mr. Philip M. Smith
follow:]
PAGENO="0026"
22
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
FRANK PRESS
Frank Press was born in Brooklyn, New York, on December 4, 1924.
His undergraduate work at the College of the City of New York
was in physics and geology. He received a master of arts degree
in 1947 and a doctor of philosophy in geophysics in 1949 from
Columbia University. From 1948 to 1955, Dr. Press served on the
faculty of Columbia University, first as an Instructor in Geology
and then as an Assistant Professor and Associate Professor of
Geology. From 1955 to 1965, he was a Professor of Geophysics
at California Institute of Technology. During that time, from
1957, he also served as Director of the Institute's Seismological
Laboratory. His most recent academic position was as Chairman
of the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His publications include
160 scientific papers in the fields of oceanography, planetary
physics, natural resource exploration, regional geophysics, struc-
ture of the earth's deep interior, and the mechanism and prediction
of earthquakes. He is co-author with R. Siever of the textbook
"Earth," widely used in American universities.
Dr. Press was elected to membership in the National Academy of
Sciences, and is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences. He was President of the American Geophysical Union, the
Seismological Society of America, and is a member of the Geological
Society of America, the Society of Exploration Geophysicists and the
Royal Astronomical Society.
Dr. Press has been active in the affairs of the National Academy of
Sciences, including membership on the Council, the Commission on
Natural Resources, the Geophysical Research Board, and the
International Geophysical Year Committee.
Dr. Press' government service includes membership on the President's
Science Advisory Committee during the Administration of President
Kennedy, membership on the Ramo and Baker Committees which were
precursory to the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the
Administration of President Ford, and membership on the NASA Lunar
and Planetary Missions Board. He was appointed to The National
Science Board for the term 1970-1976. He was a member of the
Governor's Comittee for Atomic Energy in the State of California,
and served as consultant to the Department of Defense, the Department
of the Interior, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Agency for
International Development. He was one of the organizers of the
International Geophysical Year and a prime mover of the research
efforts at earthquake prediction in the United States. He served
as a member of the U.S. delegation to the nuclear test ban negotia-
tions in Geneva and Moscow.
PAGENO="0027"
23
2
Dr. Press has been active in international scientific cooperation
as a consultant to UNESCO, as a member of the U.S. delegation to
the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for
Underdeveloped Countries, as a participant in the bilateral science
agreements with the Soviet Union and Japan, and as Chairman of the
Committee on Scholarly Communication with the Peoples Republic
of China.
Dr. Press' honors include the Columbia University Medal for Excellence
(1959), the California Scientist of the Year Award (1960), Life
Magazine - One of the Hundred Most Important Young People in the
United States (1962), Distinguished Service Award, Department of the
Interior (1971), Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1971),
Arthur L. Day Medal of The Geological Society of America (1972),
and Honorary Doctoral degrees from the University of Notre Dame and
the College of the City of New York.
On March 18, 1977, President Carter nominated Dr. Press to be
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the
Executive Office of the President and to serve as Science and
Technology Adviser to the President. The nomination was confirmed
by the Senate on April 27, 1977 and Dr. Press was sworn into office
on April 29, 1977.
Dr. Press is married to the former Billie Kallick of St. Louis,
Missouri. They have two children, William Henry Press, who is
a Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University, and Mrs. Paula
Press Checkoway, a school teacher in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
PAGENO="0028"
24
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
PHILIP M. SMITH
Mr. Smith has been the Assistant Director for Natural Resources
and Commercial Services, Office of Science and Technology
Policy in the Executive Office of the President since August
1976.
Mr. Smith was born in Springfield, Ohio, May 18, 1932. He
received a B.Sc. in 1954 and a M.A. in 1955 from Ohio State
University. During 1955-56 he was an officer in the United
States Army, serving as a specialist in polar logistics and
transportation in Greenland and Antarctica. He was responsible
for much of the siting and construction of the first Byrd
Antarctic Station for the International Geophysical Year.
During the International Geophysical Year he was a member of
the staff of the U. S. National Committee for the IGY, of
the National Academy of Sciences and the Arctic Institute of
North america.
Mr. Smith joined the staff of the National Science Foundation
in 1958 when the U. S. Antarctic Research Program activities
were assumed by the Foundation. He served subsequently
between 1958 and 1973 in a variety of positions as Director
of Field Operations, Deputy Head and Acting Head of the
Office of Polar Programs. In 1972 he directed the interagency
planning that resulted in the transfer of the Antarctic
program responsibilities from the Navy to the Foundation.
In 1973 Mr. Smith became a member of the staff of the Office
of Management and Budget, serving as Acting Branch Chief for
the General Science Branch. In 1974 he returned to NSF to
serve as Assistant to the Director in both his NSF and
Science Adviser capacities. In 1976, with the establishment
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, he transferred
to that office.
Mr. Smith is a member of the american Association for the
Advancement of Science, the american Management Association,
and other organizations. He served as Executive Secretary
of the Presidentt s Committee on the National Medal of Science
in 1974-76. He is the author of a number of articles on
polar research and logistics and two books: "Defrosting
Antarctic Secrets" and `The Frozen Future."
Mr. Smith resides in Washington, D.C.
PAGENO="0029"
25
STATEMENT OF PHILIP M. SMITH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NAT-
URAL RESOURCES AND COMMERCIAL SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF
DR. FRANK PRESS, DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE, OFFICE OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. WTe appreciate
this opportunity to make a last minute substitution, so to speak. Had
the Cabinet meeting been on any other sublect than the energy mes-
sage which the President plans to give this evening to the Congress,
Dr. Press would have changed his order of priorities, but as you know,
he is deeply interested in this subject..
To summarize very briefly Dr. Press' testimony-
Mr. THORNTON. Without objection, I think it might be appropriate
to include `all of Dr. Press' statement in the record as though he were
here to present that testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank Press follows:]
PAGENO="0030"
26
STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK PRESS,
DIRECTOR-DESIGNATE, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY,
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
ON S. 126, H.R. 35 AND OTHER BILLS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND SPACE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
APRIL 19, 1977
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
APRIL 20, 1977
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
It is a great privilege for me to appear before you today to discuss
earthquake research, prediction, hazard assessment and earthquake
disaster mitigation. I will try to provide a brief overview of a
number of developments since the hearings were held in the last
session of Congress, discuss some of the Administration plans, and
also the legislation under consideration by the Subcommittee.
Dr. McKelvey and Dr. Eggers, who are also testifying, will in
their statements expand on some of my comments, illustrating among
other things why we believe the legislative suggestions I will make
are the most appropriate actions for the Congress to take at this
time.
During 1976 and so far in 1977, there have been numerous important
events in the field of earthquake studies -- both the occurrence
of earthquake disasters and progress in earthquake research. I would
like to cite just a few of the more salient developments as I see
them.
PAGENO="0031"
27
2
The year 1976 ranks as the second worst year in recorded history for
earthquake-caused deaths. According to our best estimates, over
700,000 people lost their lives last year, compared with the worst
death toll of over 800,000 which occurred in 1556 when a deadly
tremor struck the Sian region of central China. The count of
earthquake losses rose through 1976 with alarming regularity:
23,000 in Guatemala, 1,000 in Italy, several thousand in New Guinea,
500 in Indonesia, an estimated 655,000 in China and 5,000 in the
Philippines. And now in 1977, the disasters continue with death
tolls of 1,500 in Rumania and about 1,000 in Iran in two separate
earthquakes.
The U.S. has escaped the list of devastated countries, but it must
be realized that this is just good fortune. As cited in the legis-
lation before this Comittee, much of the U.S. is vulnerable to
earthquakes and that vulnerability mounts with increasing population
and development.
The number of large earthquakes that occurred in 1976 was not excep-
tionally high. In fact, it was almost exactly the long-term average
which is 18 earthquakes of magnitude 7 or larger each year. The high
casualty figures resulted from the proximity of some of these shocks
to major population centers. As the world population increases and
is increasingly concentrated in urban areas, the earthquake losses
may be expected to increase as well.
PAGENO="0032"
28
3
Scientists and engineers can learn much from studying earthquake
damage wherever in the world it might occur. There has been a long
tradition among earthquake experts of exchanging information and
facilitating studies of foreign earthquake disasters. This tradition
was demonstrated in March of this year when an American team was invited
to Rumania to observe the damage caused there. The characteristics of
the tectonic setting of the Rumanian earthquake and the nature of the
ground shaking provide useful insight for seismic risk assessment and
design practices in the U.S. Planning for the Pacific Northwest and
southern Alaska especially can benefit from the Rumanian experience.
Scientific cooperation has continued to develop between the U.S.
and the People's Republic of China. As I described in my testimony
in June 1976 on the earthquake legislation, the Chinese successfully
predicted the occurrence of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake that struck
northeast China on February 4, 1975. The Chinese invited a delegation
of American scientists to visit the People's Republic of China to
learn of their prediction, and in June of 1976 this visit was carried
out. The delegation obtained detailed information on the basis of the
Chinese prediction and learned much about the experience of the Chinese
in issuing warnings to the people. I had the privilege of visiting
China in October of 1974 and I can say with assurance that the People's
Republic of China has mounted an impressive effort to predict earthquakes.
PAGENO="0033"
29
4
The long road ahead in achieving a reliable prediction capability,
though, was demonstrated by the Chinese failure to predict the earth-
quake near Tangshan that reportedly killed the 655,000 people, as I
mentioned earlier. It would be in the best interest of the U.S. to
maintain close contact with the Chinese to learn from their experiences.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that in my discussions with the President
he has expressed strong interest in fostering scientific and technical
communication with the People's Republic of China.
Our own efforts in the past year have been concentrated on two thrusts:
establishing a monitoring program in the region of the land uplift
in southern California and designing the accelerated research program
which led to the Administration's budget proposals now before the
Congress.
The monitoring program in California, in the region of the Palmdale
uplift, was mounted with the joint support of the National Science
Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey. The USGS is responsible
for the studies, but about 60% of the work is being carried out by
universities and private groups. Dr. McKelvey will provide additional
information on the California monitoring activities. I would like
to note that the partnership in research exemplified by the USGS and
NSF cooperation on the governmental level and the cooperation of
government, university and private scientists at another level illus-
trates my belief that basic research is extremely relevant to national
problems and can be focused on problems of national importance.
92-560 0 - 77 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
30
5
Through such mission-oriented research all parties can benefit --
those primarily interested in the phenomena of earthquakes and those
faced with a pressing national problem. To emphasize this point,
I believe that the conduct of good basic research, which attracts
the best scientific minds, is compatible with solving problems of
national importance.
The Administration has proposed, as a part of the 1978 budget, that
earthquake research, monitoring, hazards assessment and mitigation be
increased significantly, with a doubling of the effort. The total
support for the two principal research and research support agencies
would increase from $20.7 million in Fiscal Year 1977 to about
$53.6 million in Fiscal Year 1978. We believe that this research
program is well-conceived and fully merits the support of the Congress.
The accelerated program that has been proposed follows an extremely
successful planning exercise which was carried out through mid-1976.
Science Adviser Stever formed an Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and
Hazard Mitigation which was comprised of experts from the full spectrum of
earthquake activities: seismologists, geologists, engineers, sociologists,
State and local officials, planners, and building inspectors. The result-
ing plan, which was submitted to Dr. Stever on September 15, 1976,
spelled out three funding options, of which the intermediate one sub-
sequently became the basis for the FY 78 budget request. I should also
PAGENO="0035"
31
6
note that the Option B level is con~iensurate with the authorization
in H.R. 35 and S. 126. It appears, therefore, that the Congress and
the Administration are of a conmion view with regard to the appropriate
level of support for an expanded program. I believe that the important
steps that have been taken to strengthen the research program meet
the desires of the Members of Congress who have correctly spoken to
this need over several years. And, I think that the action taken ful-
fills in part one of the original objectives sought by the Congress
through its hearings and proposed legislation.
We are all aware that success in planning and conducting a scientific
research program does not assure that the public will benefit from the
results. Implementation of scientific results is often difficult and
invariably leads to social, economic and legal problems that can only
be resolved through the political process. Therefore, substantial
research on such issues is provided for in the Administration's
FY 78 budget proposal and it will be a continuing part of the overall
research plan.
It is very important, therefore, to tie together the research community
and the user connunity, which is comprised of the Federal, State
and local agencies, and the private groups and individuals that have to
make the day-to-day decisions with regard to earthquake hazards: To
build a dam or reactor or not? To allow deve~opment in a fault zone
or not? To tear down old buildings or not? These are but a few of the
questions faced by decision-makers.
PAGENO="0036"
32
7
The wedding of the research and user communities is not an easy task
in any field, and certainly is not a task that is solved by the creation
of yet another governmental agency. It is a complex problem that re-
quires careful analysis. In the end, it may well be that a new coordi-
nating agency is the solution, but it would be imprudent to jump to
that conclusion.
Our experience in developing a plan for research through such a process
gives us confidence that it probably would be successful in developing
a plan for implementation as well. Therefore, it is our intent to begin
a second phase of detailed planning, one that focuses on the user
communities. We plan to build on our experience with the Newmark
Committee, drawing together experts, including many from the State,
local and private sectors and from all areas -- banking, zoning, city
planning, engineering, and so forth.
All of the Federal agencies -- both the research and also the disaster
preparedness agencies -- and the National Bureau of Standards and
others will participate in the planning. This activity will certainly
take at least six months and possibly as much as a year. It is a for-
midable and challenging task. The result will be a detailed implemen-
tation plan that will address the following:
Development of plans for preparedness, prediction
evaluation, warning, and total response.to future
earthquakes~
PAGENO="0037"
.33
8
Development of ways for State, local and othergovern-
mental units to use existing and developing knowledge
about the regional and local variation of seismic risk in
making their plans for land use.
Development and promulgation of specifications,
building standards, design criteria, and construction
practices for achieving appropriate earthquake re-
sistance for new and existing structures.
Examination of alternative provisions and requirements
for earthquake hazards reduction tn Federal and
federally financed construction, loans, loan guarantees
and licenses.
Determination of the appropriate role for insurance,
loan programs, and public and private relief efforts
in moderating the impact of earthquakes.
Timely dissemination to the public of data and information
necessary for making knowledgeable decisions.
In addition, it is our expectation that this planning will enable us
to make studied recommendations as to any changes in organizational
alignment that should take place in the Executive Branch and any
additional legislative authority which should be sought from the Congress.
PAGENO="0038"
34
9
Let me turn now to the legislation that is before the Congress. The
Administration would propose amending the legislation to bring it in
alignment with the developments that have taken place over the last
year and which are planned in the near future. Accordingly, we would
suggest a new Section that would revise H.R. 35 and S. 126. The new
Section, `Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program" would authorize a
continuing program of research and call upon the President to develop
an implementation plan for transmittal to the Congress within one year
of the date of enactment of legislation. On April 15, I forwarded
a drafting suggestion concerning H.R. 35 and S. 126 to the leadership
of the committees in both the House and the Senate. I should like,
with your permission, to have that letter and the draft section
covering these points made a part of the hearing record.
The Administration believes that the specific features of H.R. 35 and
5. 126 which would establish a National Advisory Committee of Earthquake
Hazards Reduction and an Office of Earthquake Hazards Reduction go too
far at this time. The Administration would develop the comprehensive
implementation plan that I have outlined before coming down on a pro-
posed organizational arrangement in legislation. There is one further
point that I should make. An approach such as the one proposed would
be consistent with the President's overall plan for the review of the
organization of the Executive Branch which is being carried out under
the reorganization authority recently passed by the Congress.
PAGENO="0039"
35
10
The Adminstration is prepared to work with the committees. in achieving
mutually agreeable legislation which would incorporate provisions
of H.R. 35 and S. 126, together with the drafting suggestion that we
have submitted.
In concluding, I would like to emphasize that I think substantial
progress has been made over the last year. This progress, coupled with
the effort that I have outlined to develop a detailed implementation
plan, will begin to put us in the position that we should be in as a
nation to meet the disruptive problems caused by major earthquakes.
I am impressed with the foresight that has been exhibited by the Congress
in this area and want to reaffirm to the Administrations view that
the Congress deserves much credit for its attention to this important
national problem.
PAGENO="0040"
36
Mr. SMini. We believe that there have been a number of significant
developments internationally and domestically since the hearings
held before the committee last summer. As the testimony addresses,
there have been a number of major earthquake problems around the
world, a very large disaster in China, probably the second largest
disaster on record, a number of other tremors including the recent
one in Romania in which about 1,000 people lost their lives.
International cooperation has continued to be good. We have had
scientists continuing to exchange information with the scientists
working in other nations. So there has been the opportunity to learn
from the earthquakes that have taken place.
Now as you know, domestically over the last summer, we had a
committee of experts organized and called together by Dr. Stever to
work on an earthquake research program, an accelerated plan. That
program plan became a part of the President's budget.
In the 1978 budget as you know there is a request for about $54
million which doubles the effort in earthquake research, hazard assess-
ment, prediction and so on. We think that this is a good program
and an integrated program that includes research on all elements
that need to go forward including the questions of the social conse-
quences of earthquake hazards.
We have in the testimony urged the congressional support for this
appropriation request. Now at this time-at the time the earthquake
research committee was working, all realized-the scientists involved,
those of us in the administration and I think also it was recognized
here by both this committee and the committee in the Senate-that
an accelerated research program was only part of the program.
We also needed to work to develop a much better connecting up of
research capability with the State and local government units that
make the decisions about handling earthquake problems and con-
nections with the private sector.
Accordingly, we feel that the next appropriate step and the step
that we would recommend be handled by the drafting suggestion that
we have sent forward by letter at the beginning of last week, would be
to spend some months working through this relationship between a
growing Federal capability for earthquake prediction and hazard
assessment and the State and local and private sector relationships.
Another drafting suggestion that we have submitted calls in effect
for the President to undertake a comprehensive review of the im-
plementation plan and to within 1 year submit this plan to the Congress
for its approval, to take such steps as he needs to take to improve the
organizational lines of authority within the executive branch and to
seek legislation from the Congress for any additional coordinating
mechanisms that he needs to set up.
Mr. THORNTON. Without objection that letter and the enclosed
draft language will be made a part of the record at this point.
[The above mentioned material follows:]
PAGENO="0041"
37
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON. DC. 2~S~
April 15, 1977
Honorable John V. Wvdler
Committee on Science and Technology
House of Pepresentatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Wvdler:
In recent weeks the Administration has been considering the
earthquake legislation developed by Senator Cranston, ~lr.
Brown and others and introduced in both the House of Re~re-
sentatives and the Senate. In preparing for the hearings
that will be held next week by committees of both the House
and Senate, we have examined those bills, prior Congressional
hearings, and the initiative.s that already have been taken
to strengthen Federal research efforts.
As you know, about a year ago H. Guyford Stever, my predecessor
as Science and Technology Adviser, convened an Advisory
Panel on Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Nitigetion. This
panel, chaired by Professor Nathan H. Newraark of the University
of Illinois, prepared a report entitled "Earthqunke Prediction
and hazard Mitigation -- Options for USGS and NSF programs
The report provided the basis for recommending substantial
increases for earthquake research programs in the Budget for
Fiscal Year 1978, presently before the Congress. The total
support for the two principal agencies, the National Science
Foundation and the Geological Survey, would increase from
$20.7 million in Fiscal Year 1977 to about $53.6 million in
Fiscal Year 1978. We believe that this research program is
well-conceived, well-coordinated and fully merits the support
of Congress.
All of us who have been concerned with this matter in the
Administration, the Congress, and the community recognize
that a research program by itself, however, is not sufficient.
An effective program implementing the renults of this research,
and our expanding understanding of eartheuake-related phenomena,
must be developed and put into place. Identification of
implementation actions that could be taken and their cost
and consequences, is difficult, however, because it involves
a wide range of interests and many organizational units,
PAGENO="0042"
38
includinc Federal agencies, State and local covernments, and
the private sector. As one who has personally been concerned
with earthcuake mrediction and hazards reduction over many
years, it is my firm belief that we must devote a substantial
effort to determining the a~prcpriate means of implementing
the improving Federal caeabilitv in earthcuake crediction.
Along with others in the Administration I am prepared to
direct this effort over the months ahead.
It would he most helpful from the Administrations perseective
if the legislation that the Congress is considering could
reflect the need to have a comprehensive review of an implementa-
tio.n plan before there are created, by legislation, specific
advisory or organizational mechanisms for effecting coordination.
Enclosed is a drafting sugcostion that would provide for
this, and, also take into account the accelerated research
program as reflected in the Newmark plan and the 1978 budget.
Under the draft section, the President would assure the
establishment and development of a comprehensive program for
mitigating loss of life and propert\:, and economic and
social disruption, from earthquakes. Within 1 year, he
would take approuriate actions under existing authority and
recommend to Congress any specific legislation required to
improve organization and coordination. Further, a comprehensive
plan would be devuloned establishing year-by-year targets
for implementation actions, including recommendations about
the appropriate roles for Federal, State, and local governmental
and private activities.
Consistent with the Administration's commitment to involve
the public, the draft section also calls for participation
of State and local governments, and the private sector in
the formulation and conduct of the program. In making plans
for such participation, we will consult with the Members of
Congress.
We believe that the enclosed suggestions would ureatly
strengthen the bills now before the Congress and are prepared
towork with you in achieving mutually agreeable legislation
in this important matter.
I look forward to testifying next week.
Sincerely,
Frank Press
Director-Designate
Enclosure: Drafting Suggestions
for H.R. 35 and S. 126
PAGENO="0043"
39
SEC. Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.
(a) The President shall take such action as nay be
necessary to assure the development and implc:~entation
of a coordinated and comprehensive program directed to
mitigating loss of life and property, and economic and
social disruption from earthquakes. Such prc;orarn shall
be presented in connection with the annual recommenda-
tions on the Federal budget.
(1) Research. The research portion of this
program shall include but not be limited to the
following activities:
(A) Fundamental Earthquake Studies - Research
into the basic causes and mechanisms of
earthquakes.
(B) Prediction - Development of methods to
predict the time, place and magnitude of
future earthquakes.
(C) Induced Seismicity - Development of an
understanding of the circumstances in which
earthquakes might be artificially induced by
the injection of fluids in deep wells, by the
impoundment of reservoirs or by other means.
(D) Hazard Assessment - Development of
techniques for the delineation and evaluation
of the potential effects of earthquakes and
their application on a regional basis.
(H) Engineering - Development of methods for
planning, design, construction, rehabilita-
tion and utilization of man-made works so as
to effectively resist the hazards imposed by
earthquakes.
(F) Research for Utilization - Exploration
of possible options for social and economic
adjusbnents to reduce earthquake vulner-
ability and to exploit effectly existing and
developing mitigation techniques.
(2) ~plenentation. In addition to the research
activities in subsection (a) (1), the President
shall have prepared and shall transmit an imple-
mentation plan to the Congress within one year
from the date of enactment of this Act. Such plan
PAGENO="0044"
40
shall set year-by-year targets through at least
1980, and shall include recommendations as to the
appropriate roles for Federal, State and local
units of government, and individuals and organiza-
tions in the private sector. The plan shall
address, but not be limited to, the following:
(A) Development of plans for preparedness,
prediction evaluation, warning, and total
response to future earthquakes;
(B) Development of ways for State, local and
other governmental units to use existing and
developing knowledge about the regional and
local variation of seismic risk in making
their plans for land use.
(C) Development and promulgation of specifi-
cations, building standards, design critieria,
and construction~ practices for achieving
appropriate earthquake resistance for new and
existing structures.
(D) Examination of alternative provisions
and requirements for earthquake hazards
reduction in Federal and federally-financed
construction, loans, loan guarantees and
licenses.
(E) Determination of the appropriate role
for insurance, loan programs, and public and
private relief efforts in moderating the
impact of earthquakes.
(F) Timely dissemination to the public of
data and information necessary for making
knowledgeable decisions.
(b) Within one year of the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall inform the Congress of action
taken under existing authorities, and transmit to
Congress his recommendations as to any new legislative
authority required to conduct and implement effectively
an earthquake hazards reduction program. Such actions
and recommendations shall address, but not be limited
to:
(1) improving coordination of earthquake
hazard reduction activities, including research,
practices, preparedness planning, and disaster
relief;
PAGENO="0045"
41
(2) improving organization within the Executive
Branch.
(3) setting program priorities for allocation of
Federal spending in earthquake hazards reduction
activities.
(c) In carrying out this section, the President shall
provide opportunity for participation of States and
local governments, and the public and private sectors
(including business and industry, the design profes-
*sions and the research community) in the formulation
and conduct of program.
PAGENO="0046"
42
Mr. SMITH. We think that this would be the appropriate way to go.
Our testimony outlines the major elements of the implementation
plan that we think must be developed. We comment briefly on a. couple
of provisions that. are found in either the House bill or the companion
bill from the Senate and suggest that prior to establishing specific
organizational arrangements, the implementation review should go
forward.
I think that that covers the high points of the testimony. We cer-
tainly all feel that the interest that the Congress had had1 your com-
mittee and the committee in the Senate and the leadership both Mr.
Brown and Senator Cranston have given in this area. has been very
important.
We are most anxious to work with the Congress to achieve mutually
agreeable legislation and to meet the timetable that you are working
toward in relation to your mid-May point.
Thank you.
Mr. THORNTON. Thank you very much for your testimony. I think
it is appropriate to highlight the fact that earthquakes occur very
frequently throughout t.he world. I believe the long-term average is
referred to as being 18 earthquakes having a magnitude of seven or
more.
As the world's population grows, the chances of this striking a
populated area increase. I think this is one of the reasons that we feel
it is important. to move forward with this legislation even though we
have been fortunate in this country in recent years not. to experience
such a catastrophe.
Do you have any comment with regard to that?
Mr. S~rrrH. I would agree with you completely. Dr. Press pointed
out yesterday when we were at the Senate that we must move forward
but that there are many things we still do not understand. It will take
time to work out a more reliable prediction system. One point in
particular that came up that I think you will be interested in, Mr.
Thornton, has to do with the greater difficulty of ma:king predictions
about earthquakes that occur in the center of or away from the mar-
gins of plates.
Mr. THORNTON. I was hoping you would mention that. That was in
my section of the country.
Mr. SMITH. Our most devastating earthquake occurred at. a time
when the population in. the Mississippi River Valley was compara-
tively small. It would be a much different, thing today. Dr. Press did
point out that t:he ability to predict earthquakes in the centers of
plates is a more elusive kind of thing than the ones around the edges,
such as on the west coast.
There are many things that must. be pursued before we can say we
have the competence to handle some of these earthquakes problems.
Mr. ThoRNToN. It is quite a challenge as I understand it with re-
gard to the plate structure in an area. like the one you mentioned where
you don't have two continental plates rubbing against each other but
maybe a lens type structure or a thin structure at some depth which
gives totally different characteristics and maybe requires different.
prediction techniques.
Mr. Dornan~ do you have any questions at t.his time?
PAGENO="0047"
43
Mr. DORNAN. I don't. I was curious about the date of that Mississippi
earthquake.
Mr. THORNTON. It was in 1812.
Mr. Si~IITH. December 16, 1811.
Mr. DORNAN. Has there ever been a projection ~ven today's popu-
lation density what the projected loss of life and property damage
might be?
Mr. SMITH. I don't know precisely but this was a major quake.
Tremors were felt over the greater part of the central part of the
country and over a larger area.
So when you consider the population centers, Memphis, St. Louis,
right on up the river toward Chicago, there would indeed be the
possibility of quite severe residential and public building damage
and property damage.
In general our problems of loss of life may be less here than in some
countries because of the generally better construction techniques that
we use in the United States than in some of the underdeveloped
nations.
The very severe damage in Guatemala, for example, was largely
caused by the inadequate construction of houses. But an earthquake
of that magnitude anywhere in the United States, west coast, central,
Mississippi Valley, would in any major population center cause a
good deal of damage.
Mi. DORNAN. Can reinforced construction hold down loss of life?
But isn't it true that these structures would be so damaged that the
property damage would still be incredible?
Mr. SMITH. I think not. There are a great many of the large build-
* ings that have fairly good structural integrity. There would be a
great deal of rehabilitation, however.
A lot of the construction techniques that use these slab skins on the
buildings, that sort of thing would probably be heavily damaged.
But I think our feeling is that there is quite a bit of our building
technique that is capable of withstanding reasonably heavy
earthquakes.
You might want to talk to Dr. Thiel about that when he testifies.
He is perhaps the expert amongst us this morning on earthquake
engineering specifically.
Mr. THORNTON. The Mississippi quake was the most severe earth-
quake in recorded history in North America. The tremors were felt
as far east as.Washington and Philadelphia. It really shook the entire
country. The Mississippi River was put out of its banks. In fact, some
eyewitnesses said it flowed backward for a time.
It was an amazingly severe earthquake. Because of the plate struc-
ture, it is not anticipated that an earthquake of that magnitude is
likely to occur again for a period measured in hundreds of years.
But no one knows for sure. I apologize in a sense for adding that
to the record, but I am familiar with some of the details of that par-
ticular quake.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Smith, I want to thank you for being here. On the
point which Mr. Dornan has raised, I note that Dr. Press' statement
indicates that 1976 was the year in which there were unusual losses
from earthquakes but that the number of severe earthquakes was
PAGENO="0048"
44
exactly average and this excessive loss situation stemmed from the
increasing population and construction and other things which have
occurred.
That of course will continue.
Mr. SMITH. That is correct, sir. That, of course, is from oun per-
spective in the United States very much a major reason for getting
on with a better predicting and research capability and an implemen-
tation program that takes into account hazard assessment, zoning,
preparations for earthquakes and such techniques even as retrofitting
existing structures where possible to better prepare them to withstand
shocks.
We do have major population centers and clusters of people in very
earthquake prone regions as you well know.
Mr. BROWN. I want to express my personal gratification at the sup-
port which the administration has given.
In fact it developed during the previous year under the former
administration and has been continued by the present administration.
I don't think there is any substantial difference between the Congress
and the executive branch on this, on the importance of having a
program.
I think the problems if any, and I hope they will be minimal, exist
with regard to the degree of specificity in establishing a legal frame-
work or legislative framework for the program. In that regard, I am
sure that the Congress desires to be as flexible and as cooperative as
it possibly can.
I would suspect that the Congress takes the view that on a major
and important long-range program of this sort it would be helpful
if the Congress were to express a legislative intent with a minimum
amount of restrictions in order to facilitate public awareness if noth-
ing else of the significance of the program and public support for the
expenditure of tax funds in connection with it.
In that regard I would like to explore your thinking and Dr. Press'
thinking with regard to the kind of an organizational structure or
central coordination that might be best in a legislative framework.
We are, of course, prepared to recognize the fact that it may take
some tinie to develop a plan. The legislation possibly should provide
for a period.
Would you like to comment on that a little further?
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. We~I would say this. I think that with regard
to the research program itself and the relationships between the agen-
cies conducting the research and the review process `both by the ad-
ministration and by the Congress, that we have a. fairly systematic
way of approaching this coordination.
We have good cooperation between the two principal agencies, the
National Science Foundation and the ilLS. Geological Survey. We
have a program plan and a systematic method of reviewing it by way
of the budget process, the authorization and appropriations process.
So for the elements of the problem that are within the Federal
capability and Federal control, so to speak, undertaking the research,
the organizational problems seem to be more clearly worked out.
Now, as the program goes on, there is no ouestion about the fact
that there will be some shifts in resnonsibilities. As you know, the
National Science Foundation legislation itself has certain stnctures
PAGENO="0049"
45
with regard to the conduct of applied research and demonstration
activities.
Some aspects of the earthquake engineering work that now is going
on at the National Science Foundation perhaps in time might shift
to* the Geological Survey. We think that this would be a kind of
thing that would be systematically reviewed in our annual program
review. Of course, our office, the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, the domestic policy
group, would participate in this kind of a revieiv and possibly change
in assignment.
Now, with regard to the implementation, that is the place where I
think we ourselves in the administration feel that we really do need
to do quite a bit more thinking about how we take our Federal ca-
pabihty, our growing Federal capability for prediction and imple-
mentation to the State and local government decisionmaking people
who must have the ultimate responsibility.
What do you do, for example? Now we are faced with major water
problems in the West. If there were a prediction of a moderate earth-
quake, it would be a hard decision for a mayor to say that he was
going to drain his reservoirs on the basis of a prediction because water
is needed very badly.
So we feel that a period of time would be a very beneficial thing to
get a group of people together-government agency people, experts
from State and local government, private sector people, people who are
concerned with insurance, with zoning, with setting of standards, the
National Bureau of Standards, the Standards Association and so
forth-and really try to think through this and t:hen come back to the
Congress with a plan.
I think that this plan would have a proposed organizational struc-
ture with some clear assignment of responsibility. I might say one
other thing, Mr. Brown. As you know, the Congress has granted the
President a general reorganizational authority and that.process is now
beginning by way of a review of the `White House and the Executive
Offices.
In connection with that, I might say there are very few activities that
have been talked about in terms of putting more things into the
White house-Executive Office structure but one thing that has been
discussed and is under review is the general question of the prepared-
ness problem, both the preparedness and the disaster assistance.
I think there is a feeling on the part of everyone here in the Con-
gress and in the executive that the splintering up of the activities
that took place several years ago might not have been the best ap-
proach. So while the general reorganization is going forward and a
functional review of these kinds of questions takes place, we would
propose a solid piece of work on the earthquake problem and then
reporting back with recommendations.
We are in complete agreement with you that there need to be specific
assignments, clear lines of reporting authority in particular so that
the people who have the decision process ultimately to fulfill, the State
and local people, know where to go in Washington and they are not
faced with a maze of sometimes even conflicting kinds of authorities.
So that was the thrust of our drafting suggestion. We would hope
within a year to come back with this plan. It would have organizational
92-560 0 - 77 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
46
recommendations in it and some specific step-by-step milestones of
how we are going to proceed over the next several years in the same
manner as we have laid out for the research program.
Mr. BROWN. I am pleased with that. I note it does not differ sub-
stantially from recommendations made by the General Accounting
Office several years ago. This administration is approaching this prob-
lem in that wa~ and I am glad about that.
Obviously a situation which involved the possibility of major dis-
asters requires some form of centralized leadership. If we are going
to say on the basis of developing this particular capability that an
earthquake threatens a city of a million, it is going to be pretty hard
to persuade that city to evacuate its population or take any other
drastic action unless it seems that the leadership of this country is
behind that particular prediction or recommendation because it is
expensive and it is going to involve upsetting the lives of a lot of
people.
It is not some obscure bureau some place tha.t can get away with
doing that. This psychological fact alone is conducive to having some
central authority that can speak.
I appreciate your proceeding in the fashion you have outlined. I
have no further questions.
Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Brown. I would like to ask whether
you would agree to respond to such questions in writing as may be
addressed to you by the subcommittee?
Mr. SMITH. Certainly.
Mr. THORNTON. And particularly I am a little concerned about the
area of discussion which has just occurred. The framework of both
the House and the Senat.e bills has included the formation of an
agency to act as a central coordinating agency based on the rationale
that it is necessary to have a focus for this kind of effort.
The administration recommendation does not establish clearly such
a function. I would like for you to address that question either now
or in writing.
Mr. SMITH. I think, Mr. Thornton, if we felt we knew what to rec-
ommend we would have made a recommendation as to which agency
ought to have that responsibility. But I think we would say candidly
that we do not now know the answer to that question as to what agency
ought to be the central coordinating agency for earthquake prediction
and preparedness.
That is one of the things we want to think through and report back
to you on. We want to provide you with our best recommendation.
While the language we have set forth is somewhat silent on the sub-
ject of external advice, drawing in outsiders, the State and local
people, although there is a specific mention of drawing State and local
people in our suggestion, certainly it is our intention in this review
to bring in many, many people from the outside.
And that is part of the problem. You cannot work this problem
out amongst a group of people from Federal agencies gathered to-
gether here at this end of the problem. You have got to get the people
from tl1e other end-from the State and local level. We will in the
process of doing this consult widely and we will look into some of these
questions that I know that you have discussed before~ the problem of
having an external evaluation of an earthquake prediction capability
PAGENO="0051"
47
so that an agency or a group is not in effect with its own resources alone
evaluating its own predictions and so forth.
But I think we would say that we ourselves do not know now what
we think would be the most effective thing to recommend in the way
of a central focal point for prediction and coordination.
Mr. THORNTON. Well, the point I am trying to make is that while I
understand how difficult it is to clearly delineate responsibilities for
the various agencies and the precise structural formation when we are
engaged in reorganization, still I think it may also be important for
Congress to install in its legislation that such cooperation is necessary
to an effective program of the kind included in this legislation.
If there are no further questions I would like to ask if Dr. Vincent
McKelvey is here. Dr. McKelvey, I believe you are accompanied by
Mr. James Devine. We are very pleased to have you here before this
subcommittee.
We apologize for the hour in which we are asking for your testimony
to be presented. I hope that you are not a person who is accustomed to
eating precisely at 12 o'clock. I would like to ask you to proceed.
[A biographical sketch of Dr. Vincent McKelvey follows:]
PAGENO="0052"
48
Vincent Ellis NcKelvey, Biographical Data
Born: Huntington, Pennsylvania, April 6, 1916.
Married: Genevieve Patricia Bowman, 1937. One son, Gregory Ellis, 1943.
Residence: 6601 Broxburn Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20034.
Education:
B.A. with Honors in Geology, Syracuse University, 1937.
M.A., University of Wisconsin, 1939.
Ph.D., University of Wisconsin, 1947.
Empl oyment:
Junior Geologist, part-time, Soil Conservation Service, 1938-40.
Asst. Geologist, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey,
sumers 1939-1940.
Visiting Lecturer, Stanford University, 1956. -
Geologist, U. S. Geological Survey, 1941-present;
Chief Radioactive Minerals Investigations, 1950-53;
Asst. Chief Geologist for Interagency Programs, 1960-62;
Asst. Chief Geologist for Economic and Foreign Geology, 1962-65;
Senior Research Geologist, 1969-71;
Chief Geologist, 1971;
Director, December 1971-
Special Assignments:
Consultant, Chief of Engineers, Manila, 1945..
Minerals specialist, USICA-Government of Jordan, 1958.
Minerals and Fuels Subcommittees, Federal Council for Science and Technology,
1961-63.
Department of Interior Energy Policy Staff, 1961-71.
U. S. representative and advisor to Energy Committee, Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, 1955-67.
U. S. representative to Government Advisory Committees on Energy and Minerals,
United Nations Resource and Transport Division, 1967.
Advisor on phosphate exploration, Government of Saudi Arabia, 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- .
Chairman, Project Independence Blueprint Interagency Oil Task Force, 1974.
~cert~c ~u~cocs:
Geological Survey and scientific journal articles dealing with the geology of
manganese, phosphate, uranium, mineral and fuel resources, marine resources,
methods of estimating reserves, prospecting methods, stratigraphy, sedimentation,
mineral economics.
PAGENO="0053"
49
2
Scientific Societies:
American Association for Advancement of Science (Fellow).
American Geological Institute (Member of Board of Directors 1968-71).
Geological Society of America (Fellow, Member of Council 1968-72).
Society of Economic Geologists (Member of Council 1967-70.
American Geophysical Union (Fellow).
Economic Geology Publishing Co. (Member of Board of Directors).
Geochemical Society.
Sigma Xi.
Cosmos Club (Member of Board of Management).
American Institute of Mining Engineers.
American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
Marine Technology Society.
Honors:
Department of the Interior Distinguished Service Award, 1963.
AIME Henry Krumb Lecturer, 1968.
Seventh McKinstry Memorial Lecturer, Harvard University, 1971.
National Civil Service League 1972 Career Service Award for Sustained Excellence.
Rockefeller Public Service Award, 1973.
D.Sc. (Hon.), Syracuse University, 1975.
D.Sc. (Hon.), South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, 1976.
Donnel Foster Hewett Lecturer, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 1976.
Syracuse University Alexander Winchell Distinguished Alumnus Award, 1976.
PAGENO="0054"
50
STATEMENT OF DR. VINCENT McKELVEY, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEO-
LOGICAL SURVEY, ACCOMPANIED BY FAMES DEVINE, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, USGS
Dr. MCKELVEY. We are pleased to be here, Mr. Chairman. If my
entire statement can be included in the record, I will simply try to
touch on some of the highlights.
Mr. THORNTON. Your statement as prepared will be made a part
of the record at this point.
Please proceed as you wish.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Vincent McKelvey follows:]
PAGENO="0055"
51
Statement of
V. E. McKelvey
U.S. Geological Survey
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology
of the
Committee on Science and Technology
U.S. House of Representatives
April 20, 1977
H.R.35 Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss
once again the role of the Department of the Interior and the
U.S. Geological Survey in earthquake hazards reduction. As you know,
we have been developing a strong research program, and I am pleased
to say that the President and the Secretary of the Interior are lending
their full support to the continuation of this program and its further
expansion. Evidence of their support comes both in the form of the
expanded FY `78 Budget request and their general support of the proposed
legislation.
In regard to the legislation before this Committee today, I would
like to begin by saying that we are in substantial agreement with the
objectives of H.R.35, the "Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977."
We believe, too, that a successful earthquake hazards reduction program
must h~ve not only a strong base of research, but a clear delineation of
the roles of the various entities involved, and of the cost and consequences
of alternative hazards reduction actions.
PAGENO="0056"
52
2
We believe that H.R.35, if amended along the lines suggested by
Dr. Press, would provide an effective and logical vehicle for dealing with
these comon concerns, and for developing and maintaining in the coming
years a comprehensive program. The program developed in the manner
suggested would provide a means for the monitoring by Congress of develop-
ments in this area. The proposed amendment addresses, realistically we
believe, the relative status of the technological bases for hazards
reduction and the currently available means to implement them.
With regard to research, we believe that the expanded program, upon
which this amendment would build, is consonant with the spirit of, and
similar in scope to, the research programs outlined in H.R.35. With regard
to implementation, the amendment offered in the letter from Dr. Press
would allow the President a flexibility in administering this program that
is consistent with the reorganization process now getting underway.
Further in this connection, we do not believe that the optimum Federal
strategy for earthquake hazards reduction is yet available, consequently
the precise specification of roles or the establishment of new coordinating
mechanisms seems premature. We feel that it would be appropriate for the
Administration to study these issues carefully and fully, before further
structuring the Federal establishment through legislation.
The principle of involving a wide range of interests outside the
Federal Government to advise on the direction of the program, contained in
H.*R.35 is vi~al. We in the Department of the Interior and Geological Survey
are fully committed to this principle, as evidenced by the existence of
our Earthquake Studies Advisory panel. The amendments offered in the
letter from Dr. Press would require this kind of advice, but would allow
desirable flexibility in the manner in which it is obtained.
PAGENO="0057"
53
3
Turning now to our plans for Fiscal 1978 and beyond, I will say that
we are pleased about the expanded program in earthquake hazards reduction
contained in the Presidents Budget that is now before Congress and the
prospects it offers for iriprovement in all approaches to the problem.
As you are probably aware the Executive Branch undertook last year a
review and analysis of tha earthquake hazards reduction programs within
the National Science Foundation and the Geological Survey. This process,
carried out by an Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and Hazard
Mitigation chaired by Professor Nathan Newmark, of the University of
Illinois, was directed by the Science Adviser to the President. The
resulting report Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Nitigation--Options
for USGS and NSF Programs' was used in the budget process for
Fiscal Year 1978. Contained in the budget are requests to increase the
earthquake program within the Geological Survey from the current level
of $11.2 to $28.0 million for FY 1978. Increases of a similar magnitude
are proposed for the National Science Foundation. The program will be
broadly based. We will share with the Foundation responsibility for
fundamental studies of earthquakes but will take the lead in prediction,
hazards assessment and the investigation of induced seismicity. The
Foundation will take the lead in engineering and research for utilization,
a term that includes studies of the social and economic aspects of the
problem. Extensive plans are currently being laid to begin this expanded
program at the start of the fiscal year, if the requested funds are
appropriated by the Congress. We anticipate that a very large part of
PAGENO="0058"
54
4
the expanded program will be carried out outside the Federal establishment--
in universities, private industry and by Stateand local governments.
We are currently involving these groups in the planning of the program.
We are keenly aware that the research and development of scientific
capabilities for earthquake hazard reduction are worthless without
appropriate means for implementing them. Within our own agency within the
last two years, we have established the Office of Land Information and
Analysis, in an effort to provide geologic information to decision makers
in a format that is useful to them. Preceding this effort we undertook
a large demonstration study of the San Francisco Bay Region--joined in
part by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In this effort,
geologic data were developed and made available to local governments,
-firms, and any interested parties. Many of the most popular products--
in the view of the users--involved descriptions of earthquake hazards.
But we recognize that these efforts represent only a beginning and
that substantial additional effort will be required. It must be remembered
in dealing with this problem that most of the significant actions that
can be taken to actually reduce the hazard must be taken by entities
outside the research and prediction agencies and, indeed, outside, the
Federal Government. Actions must be taken by States, local governments,
corporations, professional groups, families, and individuals, to name a
few of the entities that must be involved. From a Federal perspective
the problems we face are, on the one hand, how to develop the research
bases for the means of hazards reduction and, on the other hand, how to
provide mechanisms and, if justified, incentives for these means to be
PAGENO="0059"
55
5
utilized. Implementation is a difficult problem that needs much more
attention than it has received thus far.
Last year, in testimony before this Committee, I discussed the
evolution of our program and the nature of the earthquake threat to the
United States. I would like to report now on some of the developments
since the last hearings that may be of interest to the Committee.
First, I am pleased to note that last week, we published in the
Federal Register a description of "U.S. Geological Survey capabilities
and proposed procedUres for assisting in warning and preparedness for
geologic-related hazards." The purpose of that statement is to describe
the Geological Surveys capabilities for advance recognition of various
kinds of geologic-related hazards and the procedures proposed to carry
out the responsibilities delegated to me under the Disaster Relief Act
of 1974. Briefly, we intend to issue technical information in three
categories which can be taken as the basis for the issuance of recommen-
dations or orders to take defensive action by State and local governments,
where the police and public safety authority rests in our governmental
system. These categories are:
o Notice of Potential Hazard
o Hazard Watch
o Hazard Warning
Let me explain these categories as they relate to earthquake hazards.
The "Notice of Potential Hazard" would be, for example, the communication
of information about the location and characteristics of an identified
fault, which, because of geologic evidence for its youthfulness, must be
considered as the possible source of a future significant earthquake. A
PAGENO="0060"
56
6
`Hazard Watch," would be the communication of information, as it develops,
about phenomena that could be precursors to a potentially catastrophic
earthquake in the area or region, thr which no period or time of
occurrence can be specified. This would correspond in a general way
to the situation we have in southern California at the present time
resulting from the discovery last year of a significant land uplift,
about which I will say more later. The third category "Hazard Warning,"
is one for which we now have only a limited capability, but which we are
working hard to improve. It would be the communication.of information
(a prediction if you will) as to the time (possibly within days and
hours), location, and magnitude of a potentially disastrous earthquake.
We have invited comment on these procedures and will modify them later
as appropriate.
With regard to the land uplift in southern California, last year the
U.S. Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation reprogrammed
$2.1 million of funds to launch an intensive program of study into the
earthquake potential associated with the uplift. Those studies are
currently underway and we do not yet have any final answers. We do know
that the total region covered by the uplift is much larger than we
originally thought (some 90,000 square kilometers as compared to the
12,000 square kilometer area first recognized), that the region involved
in the uplift grew with time toward the southeast, and that within the
last two years a portion of the region began to subside again, reducing
the accumulated uplift in that area to about half the maximum value it
PAGENO="0061"
57
7
had attained in 1974. We do not know at the present time whether the
partial subsidence of the uplift increases or decreases the prospects
for a large earthquake in this region in the near future, but we believe
that the activity justifies continued concern.
Last summer Dr. Barry Raleigh of the Geological Survey led a team
of American specialists to the People's Republic of China to learn more
about the successful prediction of the magnitude 7.3 earthquake that
occurred on February 4, 1975, in Liaoning Province. The group returned
satisfied that the Chinese had indeed predicted the earthquake in advance
and had taken extensive defensive measures. They learned many details of
the observations leading up to the prediction and of how the prediction
was used by the Chinese. Of particular interest was that the group
included a sociologist specializing in the socio-economic aspects of
natural hazards and their prediction. The report of this delegation is
scheduled for publication in the next month or so. In addition, one of our
geologists, Dr. Edward Chao, visited China this winter, where he learned
some of the first results of the Chinese studies of the unpredicted and
tremendously damaging Tangshan earthquake of July 28, last year. We
intend to utilize the experience gained in China and elsewhere around the
world to the fullest extent possible in designing and implementing our
program.
PAGENO="0062"
58
8
In conclusion, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity
to discuss this legislation with you. We are in substantial agreement
with its objectives. We believe that if the legislation were amended as
suggested by Dr. Press, it would provide an effective and logical vehicle
for developing and maintaining a comprehensive program. I would particularly
like to emphasize that we are pleased to be ready to work with you in
developing a legislative basis for a strong national earthquake hazards
reduction program.
PAGENO="0063"
59
Dr. MCKELVEY. Thank you, sir.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss the role of the
Department of Interior and the Geological Survey in earthquake haz-
ards reduction. As you know, we have been developing a strong re-
search program and I am pleased to say that the President and the
Secretary of the Interior are lending their full support to the continua-
tion of this program and its further expansion.
Evidence of their support comes both in the form of the expanded
fiscal year 1978 budget request and their general support of the pro-
posed legislation.
With respect to the legislation under consideration, .1 wish to say that
we are in substantial agreement with the objectives of H.R. 35, the
earthquake hazards reduction Act of 1977.
We believe, too, that a successful earthquake hazards reduction pro-
gram must not only have a strong basis of research, but a clear delinea-
tion of the roles of the various entities involved and the cost of and
consequences of alternating hazard re.duction actions.
We believe that H.R. 35 if amended along the lines suggested by Dr.
Press would provide an effective vehicle for dealing with these common
concerns and for developing and maintaining in the coming years a
comprehensive program.
The proposed amendment addresses realistically, we believe, the
relative status of the technological basis and the current available
means to achieve them. We are keenly aware that the research and
development of scientific capabilities for earthquake hazards reduction
are worthless without appropriate means for implementing them.
Within our own agency within the last 2 years we have established
the Office of Land Analysis in an effort to provide information. Pre-
ceding this effort we undertook a large demonstration study of the San
Francisco Bay Region joined there by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development.. Geologic data were made available and presented
to government, private firms, and interested parties. One of the most.
popular products involved descriptions of earthquake hazards.
We recognize these efforts represent only a beginning and that sub-
stantial additional effort will be required. Implementation is a difficult
problem. It needs much more attention than it has received thus far.
Last year, Mr. Chairman, in testimony here, I discussed the evolu-
tion of our program and the nature of the earthquake threat to the
United States. I would like now to report briefly on some of the `de-
velopments since the last hearings that may be of interest to the
committee.
I am pleased to note that on April 12, we published in the Federal
Register a description of the U.S. Geological Survey capabilities and
procedures for assisting in warning and preparedness for geologic
related hazards.
The purpose was to describe the Geologic Survey's capabilities for
advance recognition of various kinds of geological related hazards and
the procedures proposed to carry out the responsibilities delegated t'~
me under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
We intend to issue technical information in three categories which
can then be taken as the basis for the issuance of recommendations or
orders to take defensive action by State and local governments. These
PAGENO="0064"
60
categories are a notice of potential hazards, a hazard watch, and a
hazard warning.
Let me explain these categories as they relate to earthquake hazards.
The notice of potential hazard would be, for example, the communi-
cation of information about the location and characteristics of an
identified fault which because of geologic evidence must be considered
as the possible source of a future significant earthquake.
A hazard watch would be the communication of information as it
develops about phenomena that could be precursors to a potentially
catastrophic earthquake but for which no period of time of occurrence
can be specified. This would correspond in a general way to the situa-
tion we have in southern California at the present time, resulting
from the discovery last year of a significant land uplift about which
I will say more in a moment.
The third category, hazard warning, is one for which we now have
only a limited capability but w-hich we are working hard to improve.
It would be the communication of information, a prediction, if you
will, as to the time, possibly within days or hours, the location and
the magnitude of a potentially disastrous earthquake.
We have invited comment on these procedures and will modify
them later as appropriate.
With regard to the land uplift in southern California, last year the
U.S. Geological Survey and the National Science Foundation repro-
gramed $2.1 million to launch an intensive program of study into the
earthquake potential associated with the uplift.
Those studies are currently underway and we do not yet have any
final answers. We do know that the total region affected by the uplift
is much larger than we originally thought, some 90,000 square kilo-
meters as compared to the 12,000 square kilometer area originally
thought involved.
We know that within the last 2 years a portion of the region began
to subside again, reducing the uplift in that area to about half the
maximum value it had attained in 1974. We do not know at the pres-
ent time whether the partial subsidence of the uplift increases or
decreases the prospects for a large earthquake in this region in the
near future.
But we believe the activity justifies continued concern. To conclude,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you again for the opportunity to dis-
cuss this legislation with you. We are in substantial agreement with
its objectives.
We believe that if legislation were amended as suggested by Dr.
Press, it would provide an effective ~nd logical vehicle for developing
and maintaining a comprehensive program. In particular I wish to
emphasizethat we will be pleased to work with you in developing a
legislative basis for a strong national earthquake hazards program.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. BROWN. We are very appreciative of your testimony, Dr. Mc-
Kelvey. I think it does indicate that you have come a long way in
developing an effective program. I understand that your Geological
Survey has a procedure for evaluating earthquake predictions, that
you are monitoring earthquake predictions.
PAGENO="0065"
61
Do you feel that there is anything in this legislation that would
either contribute or subtract from that present exercise which is not
a predicting capability but an evaluating capability?
Perhaps you could explain that.
Dr. MOKELVEY. You are correct, Mr. Chairman. We do have a
mechanism for evaluating and authenticating earthquake predictions.
We established about a year ago, I believe it was, an earthquake predic-
tion council for the purpose of reviewing, evaluating, and authenti-
cating-if that proved to be the case-predictions made by our scien-
tists or by scientists elsewhere who submitted their predictions for this
mechanism.
Now H.R. 35 provides for an earthquake prediction board that would
serve a similar purpose. I would say that very likely it would add to
that evaluation procedure because I think in any case we would want to
have a peer review and evaluation within the Geological Survey before
any prediction we developed would be released.
Mr. BROWN. This operates on a worldwide basis, I presume? If this
group becomes aware of a prediction say in China or Europe, they
would monitor the validity?
Dr. MOKELVEY. It is conceivable that it could. Of course, our work
focuses in the TTnit.ed States and I would expect that the bulk of our
activity would be domestic rather than foreign. But it is quite con-
ceivable that such an event might take place where in some way we
were able to make a prediction as to an earthquake that might take
place elsewhere in the world.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Dornan?
Mr. DORNAN. No questions.
Mr. BROWN. Dr. McKelvey, to what degree have you attempted to or
contemplated the incorporation in the earthquake prediction scheme
the use of the kinds of resources that seem to be used in China?
By that I mean the volunteer observers, the observation of the ani-
mal behavior and things of that sort?
Dr. MOKELVEY. I will take the last part of the first, Mr. Brown.
As a part of our ongoing research program attention is being devoted
to the study of animal behavior as it would relate to earthquake
prediction. We intend to pursue that further.
We had a conference last fall, the results of which have just been
published in a 400 page volume summarizing the papers and the
proceedings at that conference. While I can say with a good deal
of confidence at this time that no one has a clear idea as to just what
kind of phenomena animals may react to, there is much evidence to
indicate that a variety of animals do react to precursor signals of
some kind.
Certainly the topic deserves further research. A lot of it possibly-
and this I think is part of the issue-in the past, a lot of it maybe
can be classed as folklore and perhaps has been too much so regarded
in the past. But certainly the topic does deserve much additional
study and we intend to pursue it.
With respect to the first part of your q~iestion, the utilization of
the general public in collecting precursor information and so on as
the Chinese are doing on a very extensive scale, I don't think that we
92-560 0 - 77 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
02
have `thought that that kind of public involvement would be appro-
priate or even possible in this country.
But we are considering and have begun to pursue the possibility
of using high school science classes, possibly, enlisting student par-
ticipation in the use of rather simple instruments, some of which
might be designed just for this purpose.
W~ think, too, `that use of the effort of a larger segment of the
public than has been utilized in the past for this purpose is an idea
also worth pursuing.
Mr. BROWN. Have your observations in the southern California
area included efforts at measuring variations in the height of well
water, for example, wells or the radioactive content of the water?
Dr. MCKELVEY. There has been some, effort on that aspect, Mr.
Chairman, but I am not able to give you any detail on it.
Mr. BROWN. I know that with the Chinese that was an element.
Dr. MOKELVEY. This is one of the precursor phenomena that the
Chinese have been using and that has been observed elsewhere, a
change in the level of ground water in wells either up or down. It
has been recorded in some instances.
Mr. BROWN. Well again, I want to thank you, Mr. McKelvey. I
would ask, merely because of the time factor if we need to solicit
additional information, if we could get your cooperation in answer-
ing written questions?
Dr. MCKELVEY. We will be happy to respond, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much and thank you Mr. Devine for
also being before us today.
Our next witnesses are Dr. Alfred Eggers, Assistant Director for
Research Applications, National Science Foundation, accompanied
by Dr. Charles Thiel, Director, Division of Advanced Environ-
mental Research and Technology. We are happy to have both of you
gentlemen with us today.
[Biographical sketches of Dr. Alfred J. Eggers and Dr. Charles
C. Thiel, Jr., follow:]
PAGENO="0067"
63
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON, 0G. 2055C
DR. ALFRED 3. EGGERS, JR.
Assistant Director for Research Applications
Dr. Alfred 3. Eggers, Jr. was appointed Assistant Director for Research
Applications in the National Science Foundation in March, 1971. In this
capacity, he directs the Foundation's program of Research Applied to
National Needs (RANN) which focuses scientific and technical research on
selected problems of national importance with the objective of contributing
to their solution.
Emphasis in RANN has been pThced on problems of productivity, environment,
and energy and resources. The role of universities, industry, and govern-
ment has received special attention in mounting effective research to ad-
dress these problems. Strengthening the capability of State and local
Governments to use science and technology more effectively in their
decisionmaking processes has been of particular importance in these under-
takings.
Before coming to NSF, Dr. Eggers was Assistant Administrator for Policy
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). in that
capacity he was responsible for managing agency-wide policy research
arid development with special cmphasis on aerospace applications.
From May 1964 until he assumed that position, Dr. Eggers was Deputy
Associate Administrator for Advanced Research and Technology at NASA.
Daring that period he also served as Special Assistant to the Administra-
tor of NASA.
Before comino to Washington in 1964, Dr. Eggers was Assistant Director of
the Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California, where he specialized
in supersonic and hypersonic aerodynamics with special attention to flight
efficiency and atmosphere entry problems.
le was awarded a B.A. degree in 1944 at the University of Omaha, a R.S. de-
gree in 1949 at Stanford University and a Ph.D. degree in engineering me-
chanics at Stanford in 1956.
Dr. Eggers is a Fellow and Founder-Director of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics and was Chairman of the AIAA President's
Forum Cornniittee on the Interactions of Aerospace Technology and Society.
He is also a Fellow of the American Astronautical Society and a member of
Sigma Xi, the honorary scientific research fraternity; Tao Beta Phi; the
American Ordnance Association; the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
PAGENO="0068"
64
in 1956, Dr. Eggers received the Arthur S. Flemminq Award as one of 10
outstanding young men in government. In 1957, he was named one of the
Ten Outstanding Young Men in the Nation by the U.S. Junior Chamber of
Commerce. He received the 1962 Sy1van~s Albert Reed Award for outstand-
ing contributions to theory and experiment on supei~sonic and hypersonic
flows. In 1958 he was presented the Outstanding Alumni Award of the
University of Omaha.
He received the H. Julian Allen Award for 1969 for the outstanding
research report from NASA/Ames Research Center up to 1969 and the
Exceptional Service Medal of NASA in 1971. In 1972, Dr. Eggers was
elected a member of the National Academy of Engineering and he is a
member of the Aerospace Engineering Panel. During 1969-71, he served
as the Hunsaker Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and he delivered the 1970 Min~a Martin Lecture on the Interactions of
Technology and Society. In 1974, Dr. Eggers was appointed by the
President to be Chairman of the Geothermal Energy Coordination and
Management Project, and in 1975 he received the Distinguished Service
Award of the National Science Foundation.
Dr. Eggers has been active in civic affairs ranging from School Community
Development in Los Altos, California to the Boy Scouts and Red Cross
in Arlington, Virginia. During World War II, Dr. Eggers served with
the U.S. Navy as a Lieutenant, J.G. He resides with his wife, Elizabeth,
and their two sons, Jock and Philip, in Arlington, Virginia.
PAGENO="0069"
65
Charles C. Thiel, Jr.
Dr. Charles C. Thiel is Acting Director and Deputy Director,
Division of Advanced Environmental Research and Technolociy, Direc-
torate for Research Applications, National Science Foundation.
He was born in 1940 in Chicago, Illinois, and received his educa-
tiDn at a number of schools throughout the country, prior to re-
ceiving a Ph.D., in Engineering Sciences from Purdue University.
Prior to joining the Foundations sta~f, he was a research engineer
for the General Technology 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 DisasterMitigation.
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 i-n Seismic areas group. He also is
Task Group Chairman for Engineering Seismology of the US/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.
PAGENO="0070"
66
STATEMENT OP DR. ALFRED EGGERS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR
RESEARCH APPLICATIONS, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY DR. CHARLES THIEL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. EGGERS. It is always a pleasure to appear before you and the
subcommittee. I have a very short statement.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection your very shore statement will be
included in the record.
[The prepared statements of Dr. Alfred Eggers and Dr. Charles
Thiel follow:]
PAGENO="0071"
67
Statement of Dr. Alfred J. Eggers
Assistant Director, Research Applications Directorate
National Science Foundation
Before
Subcommittee on Science Research & Technology
House Committee on Science & Technology
April 20, 1977
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before
you today to discuss the programs of the Foundation in Earthquake Prediction
and Hazard Mitigation. As noted in our previous testimony before this
Committee and reiterated by Dr. Press today, earthquakes pose a serious
threat to the people of the United States. We share with Senator Cranston,
Mr. Brown and their colleagues the conviction that there is need for a
comprehensive, well c,ordinated Federal effort in research and implementa-
tion. We feel that the Newmark report establishes a sound basis for the
conduct of the research program, and have used it as a base in the prepara-
tion of the Foundation's portion of the President's Budget for FY1978.
PAGENO="0072"
68
We share Dr. Press' concern that while we feel that a sound basis
for pursuing the research program is in hand, we are not in a similar
state of readiness to implement the results of such an accelerated
plan. As Dr. Thiel shall discuss in some detail we feel that those prescriptive
requirements of the legislation that establish particular organizational
forms and units for implemen~atjon are Dremature and may indeed not be the most.
efficient and effective means for decreasing the public's earthquake
y~.~bJll~y~_.
In summary, the Foundation endorses the objectives of the
Cranston Bill and suggests that it be modified to assure the achievement
of its purpose by incorporation of the drafting suggestion forwarded
to the Committee by Dr. Press. Dr. Thiel, Director of our Environmental
Division, has had responsibility for the development of our Earthquake
Engineering program. He will now describe our program in more detail and
discuss the nature of some of our research findings that suggest ~he course
of action we endorse.
PAGENO="0073"
69
Statement of Dr. Charles C. Thiel
Director
Division of Advanced Environmental Research & Technology
National Science Foundation
Before
Subcommittee on Science Research & Technology
House Committee on Science & Technology
April 20, 1977
Thank you, Dr. Eggers.
As noted already in this Hearing, Earthquakes are one of nature's
severest geophysical hazards. And theythreaten virtually the
entire Nation with portions of 39 States subject to major or moderate
risk.
While we are all aware of the horror of an earthquake occurrence
it must also be kept in mind that we are investing funds everyday in
construction to meet earthquake resistant building codes and we are
paying annual insurance premiums to protect us from future financial
loss in the event that an earthquake occurs. Indeed these current
costs on an annual basis are probably as great as the damage that
can be expected from future earthquakes, on an annual basis. Affecting
a reduction in these multi-faceted impacts of earthquakes in an
equitable, efficient, economic way will obviously depend on the careful
development of implementation strategies consistent with the constraints
and values of the public as It goes about Its every day activities.
PAGENO="0074"
70
NSF Research Program
The Newmark report discussed by Dr. Press, presents options for future
development of the NSF and USGS research programs, and its Option B is the
basis for the strengthening of our program as presented in the President's
budget now before the Congress. In the joint Federal program in Earthquake
Prediction and Hazard Mitigation. The NSF has responsibility for fundamental
earthquake studies, earthquake engineering and research for utilization.
The Earth Sciences Division, in the Geophysics Program, supports the
Nation's principal efforts in basic earthquake research, almost entirely
conducted by universities. The level of support has risen rather steadily
from $l.5M in FY1968, to $3.OM in FY1977 and to a request of $5.3M for FYi 978.
There is little doubt, at our present state of knowledge, that any national
program to predict earthquakes and identify hazards should be based on a
program such as this of in-depth studies and measurements of a fundamental
nature directed at the development of a thorough understanding of the natural
phenomena involved.
The RANN program in Earthquake Engineering has developed in the past
five years from a $2M per year effort in FYl97l to an $8.4M effort in FY1977
and a proposed effort in FY1978 of $20M, consistent with the Newmark report.
The program is organized into three major categories: Siting, Design and Policy.
Each of these elements has vigorous utilization efforts to achieve ready access
and timely availability of publications, information and data.
The attachment describes these program activities in more detail. These
programs are closely coordinated with other agency activities through formal
and informal mechanisms.
PAGENO="0075"
71
ILLUSTRATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
At testimony delivered before this committee, and other committees of
the Congress, the NSF has presented a substantial body of accomplishments
from our Earthquake Engineering and Geophysics programs that have illus-
trated the scientific quality, utility, and application of the programs'.
activities. Among these have been:
o Measurement of global stress patterns utilizing a newly
established network of ultra-long period seismographs;
o Successful prediction of small intraplate earthquakes in South
Carolina and New York;
o CoUection, analysis ~nd distribution of engineering data recorded
during damaging earthquakes;
o Establishment ~f the National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering;
o Improvements in municipal and State building codes, standards
and criteria, and model codes to provide more appropriate earthquake
safety;
PAGENO="0076"
72
o Improved practices by engineers, designers, and private firms
in providing safe structures; and,
o ApplIcations to the design and licensing of nuclear reactors.
Indeed, we feel that the Foundation's Earthquake program is one of
our most successful programs in supporting excellent basic and applied
research and in the case of the Earthquake Engineering program, implementing
the RANN objective of hastening the application of results.
PAGENO="0077"
73
Implementation
Legislation before the Congress at this time proposes first
that a vigorous research program be placed and, second.that various
advisory committees, a prediction evaluation board, organizational
assignments and a new organizational unit be formed. These latter
points vary between the bills, but their intent seems clear, namely,
to provide for the swift incorporation of the results of the program
into disaster mitigation practices in the public and private sectors.
Changes in building codes and land-use regulations, and the
issuance of earthquake predictions and warnings can have serious
ramifications for the social, economic, legal and political aspects
of American life. Whether a research product has a positive or
negative total effect in mitigating earthquake hazards, or is Ignored
altogether, could depend very much on the method of communication
and utilization of the product.
We council that great care be exercised prior to the establish-
ment of new organizations or conrnitteés, the realignment of functions
or the specification of roles and responsibilities. We strongly urge
that the Congress adopt a sequential strategy regarding implementation
of the results of the research program: First, a careful, concentrated
effort to determine appropriate rolesrelationshiPs, and activities of Federal,
state, and local governmental units and the private sector; and second, the
alignment of responsibilities and allocation of authorities to achieve
the purpose of Improved public safety; third, the proposing of
legislation as needed that aids achieving this purpose consistent with
the appropriate Federal role; and fourth, vigorously pursuing a
PAGENO="0078"
74
combined research and implerńentation program for the public's benefit.
We are of. ?the opinion that the incorporation of the drafting suggestion
of Dr. Press into the bills under consideration will achieve these
purposes.
We have reached these conclusions based upon both our experience
in managing research applications programs and through an examination
of the results of several RANN supported research studies now underway
or recently completed.
The Foundation's Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) program
has developed considerable expertise in managing programs that intend
to both support research and foster its application. RANN also supports,
_through its Intergovernmental Program, major efforts to increase the
capacity and capability of state and local government to use science
and technology, especially newly developed, in their operations and
policy setting. Our experience in both of these areas indicates
that for research to rapidly and effectively be inc~rporated into
public practice, the intended beneficiary (in both the public and
private sectors) must be involved in the
* establishment of objectives
* formulation of the research program
* determination of the implementation strategy
* oversight and conduct of the program
* prototypical application
PAGENO="0079"
75
The Newrnark report presents a soundly reasoned base to achieve the
research objectives of the Cranston bill, and indeed the user conmiunitieS
were involved in the setting of its objectives and in the formulation
of the research program. It is extremely important that the care taken in
designing the research program be duplicated in designing the implementation
strategy. The proposal of Dr. Press to pursue a "Newmark" type panel study
involving state and local officials and elements of the private sector to
develop an implementation strategy in our view is required prior to the
creation of institutional arrangements and functions such as proposed in
current legislation before the Congress.
An essential question is, do we know enough at this point to
begin structuring major institutional measures for mitigating the
direct and indirect consequences of earthquakes? The answer to this
question would seem to be no. Until more knowledge has been accumulated
on how populations perceive, respond to, and recover from earthquakes,
we need to move in a deliberate rather than a precipitous fashion.
The narrow knowledge base that we are working with would seem to
require such caution.
Take for example the case of earthquake prediction. The Haas-
?`lileti research on the "Socioeconomic and Political Consequences of
Earthquake Prediction" suggests that with the lead times earthquake
predictions probably will provide in the future, it will be possible
to initiate a range of social., economic and technological adaptations
to mitigate the impact of the predicted events.
PAGENO="0080"
76
Such adaptations might include initiation of warning and public
Information programs, revisions in building codes and their increased
enforcement, and special earthquake insurance programs. Their
tentative conclusions are that the prediction may induce economic
impacts as large or larger than the earthquake itself. The possible responses
to a prediction are so interrelated that even those which at first
glance mightseern to h~e nolearing on risks of death and injury
do in fact affect such risks.
Following a credible earthquake prediction, families, businesses,
and governmental agencies will try to act in a manner favorable to
their own interests. Investors will generally put their money outside
of the. "target' area, or invest very selectively within the area, on
the assumption that this will lower their.risk. Development planning
and construction in the private sector will first be drastically
reduced, and then entirely stopped. Local governments will likewise
stop or sharply reduce capital construction projects. -. . -.
Influenced by the construction industry, buisness in general
will slow its activity, unemployment will rise sharply, especially
in the building trades, and local government will suffer severe
declines in sales and property tax revenues. In the face of revenue
loss, there will be an increase, in demand for public services.
This study while tentative indicates that a'~ number of questions
from an implementation standpoint will have to be squarely faced.
Among these are:
PAGENO="0081"
77
* How.does the liability of a private employer change, if at
* all, in theface of the `yet to be proven" science of earth-
quake prediction? Are the liability considerations different
for the government as employer? How may these issues be
clarified prior to an earthquake prediction?
O Should buildings with anticipated low earthquake-resistance
* be ordered evacuated? Should public and private buildings
be treated alike in this regard? Should different criteria
be applied to buildings with different uses--should hospitals,
stores, and apartment houses be treated alike?
* Should government--local, state, and/or federal--act to offer
property-owners in the threatened area access to earthquake
insurance or its equivalent? If so, who will bear the cost?
O Should regulations governing the operation of financial
institutions and insurance carriers be altered for firms
involved in the target community?
O Should the number of weeks during which unemployment compensa-
tion is available be lengthened?
I Should disclosure of earthquake damage risk be required in
all real estate transactions?
* If there must be a reduction in public services to cope with
the financial squeeze, which services should receive the
lowest priority?
These points are indicative of the uncertainties that are placed
before us in planning for the response to an earthquake prediction.
Similar problems exist in the areas of building codes, land use
procedures, financial management, insurance and legal considerations
of adopting any of a variety of earthquake hazard mitigation procedures,
whether they are tied to an earthquake prediction or not.
92-560 0 - 77 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
78
The National Academy of Sciences' Panel on Earthquake Prediction noted
in its report that Governments should be prepared to deal with a range of
issues related to earthquake prediction and warning including those of
equity, responsibility, and legal implications. The panel indicated that
unless these issues were adequately and systematically addressed before
institutional and organizati9n~l arrangement were adopted, the effectiveness
of such arrangements might be jeopardized. Otherwise, such arrangements
themselves may create more problems than they solve.
There are, of course, many disaster mitigation or~anizations and institutions
at many levels of Government already in place throughout the country. Yet,
like other institutions in the society, they frequently experience organiza-
tional and operational problems. Relatively few studies have focused on
how effective these organizations are in preparing for, responding to, and
recovering from earthquakes. It would seem wise, then, to conduct more
such efforts before Governments develop new earthquake mitigation arrangements
or alter existing ones. -
One of the most serious problems Government officials with disaster-
mitigation responsibilities may have is communicating with a threatened popula-
tion. This has been suggested, for example, by such studies as the one conducted
by Haas and Mileti and the fIAS Panel on the Public Policy Implications of
Earthquake Prediction. Threatened populations may not understand or indeed
- choose to ignore the advice offered by responsible Government authorities.
One way that this communication barrier may be reduced is by involving larger
numbers of individual citizens and civic groups in disaster-mitigation
planning along with Government officials. Such an approach has not been tried
PAGENO="0083"
79
frequently, yet It promises greater understanding on the part of citizens
and increased commitment to disaster-mitigation. The Government might
be advised to attempt such an approach before moving ahead with developing
new mechanisms in parts of the country subjected to earthquake risk.
A RANN project with the Council of State Governments, `State Government
Policy Options for the Utilization of Earthquake Prediction Technology
provides one vehi~le to achieve this public participation. It involves a
variety of Government and other persons throughout the country in a
consideration of ways to enhance the potential social benefits of the
developing earthquake prediction capability. Its results will provide good
policy guidance on how best to structure Federal-state earthquake predic-
tion institutions and procedures.
We believe that these studies support Dr. Press' suggestions for
modification of the proposed legislation. With this modification,
we are supportive of the proposed legislation and look forward to
working with the Congress in formulating and implementing an effective
program in Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation.
PAGENO="0084"
80
Attachment
the National Science Foundation Programs in
Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Reduction
Under the aegis of the President's Science Advisor, a report on
Earthquake Prediction and Hazard Mitigation was submitted to the
President in September 1976. It presents options for future develop-
ment of the NSF and USGS research programs, and its Option B is the
basis for the strengthening of our program. The goal of
the joint NSF-USGS earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation activ-
ities is to reduce casualties, damage, and social and economic disrup-
tion from earthquakes. The social, economic, and political actions
that can be taken to attain this goal are based on technological capabil-
ities that require development through research. The primary objectives
of this research are:
o Earthquake Prediction - Develop the capability to predict the
time, place, magnitude and effects of earthquakes so that more
effective preparedness actions can be undertaken;
o Earthquake Modification and Control - Develop techniques that
allow the control or alteration of seismic phenomena;
o Land Use - Develop procedures for assessing seismic risk and
evaluating earthquake hazards so that appropriate construction
and land use plans can be implemented;
o Design Improvement - Develop improved, economically feasible
design and construction methods for building earthquake resistant
structures of all types and for upgrading existing structures; and,
PAGENO="0085"
81
o Social and Behavioral Response - Develop an understanding of the
factors that influence public utilization of earthquake mitigation
methods.
Responsibility for fundamental earthquake studies to help meet the goal
of this program are with the Geophysics program subelement of NSF and the
USGS. Earthquake prediction, induced seismicity and hazards assessment
are the responsibility of USGS, and earthquake engineering and research for
utilization are the responsibility of NSF/RANN. These agency programs are
closely coordinated through formal and informal mechanisms to achieve the
objectives set forth in the report to the President.
PAGENO="0086"
82
The RANN program in Earthquake Engineering has developed in the
past five years from a $2M per year effort in FY1971 to an $8.4M
*effort In FY1977 and a proposed effort in FY1978 of $20M, consistent
with the Newniark report. The program is organized into three major
categories: Siting, Design and Policy. Each of these elements has vigorous
utilization efforts to achieve ready access and timely availability of
publications, information and data.
SITING (FY1978 Proposed Budget: $6,000,000)
Earthquake damage results from the energy released by the earthquake
being transmitted through rock and soil to the site where a facility is
located. In some cases an earthquake may trigger secondary geophysical
hazards, such as tsunamis, land slides, or flood waves from ruptured
dams, that can have devastating impacts. The siting research area seeks
to determine the nature of the potentially damaging earthquake hazard
at particular sites so that structures may be adequately designed and
social and economic policies may be appropriately developed. The specific
objectives of this research area are to:
o Improve methods to characterize the natre of the input motions
and corresponding response of simple structural systems for
use in engineering analysis, planning and design;
* o Obtain a comprehensive data base on the nature of earthquake
motions at typical sites and in representative structures;.
o Devise in-situ and laboratory methods to determine the dynamic
properties of soils and analytic procedures, including the potential
for failure of slopes, embankments and foundations; and,
o Identify procedures for integrating information on geophysical
hazards into land use planning and siting procedures.
PAGENO="0087"
83
DESIGN (FY1978 Proposed Budget: $9,000,000)
The processes of design,analysis and construction are central to the
achievement of safe structures and systems. In turn, these processes
depend on the formulation, testing, validation and presentation of
appropriate conceptual and mathematical representations of their character-
istics.~ These models must represent the capacity of the structures and
systems at various levels of motion which occur in potentially damaging
earthquakes. They must include multidimensional, nonlinear, and
inelastic characteristics. At present, desion procedures are largely
based on linear, elastic, one-dimensional models.
The specific objectives of this research area are to:
o Improve analytical procedures for characterizing the earthquake
response of structures and structural elements based on both
analytical and experimental studies;
o Devise analytical methods to evaluate the earthquake response
of special types of structures (dams, critical facilities, bridges
and other extended structures) and of interconnected structures
and systems (pipelines, transmission lines, etc.);
o Obtain information for engineering analysis and design from
observations of damage (or lack of damaoe) following earthquakes
that support the development of improved U.S. engineering practices
and construction techniques;
PAGENO="0088"
84
o Identify economically feasible desi~in and construction methods
for building earthquake resistant structures and facilities; and,
o Develop methods to evaluate the hazard potential of existing
structures and investigate innovative methods for improving
thei r performance.
The majority of existing buildings have little earthquake resistance,
including many buildings in high risk areas of the West. This occurs
because earthquakes were not considered in their construction; the
structural resistance provided against other dynamic loads, e.g.,
wind, is insufficient, or the earthquake risk was underestimated.
Previous initiatives to upgrade hazardous structures have been limited
by high cost. Costs reduced by several factors still seem too high
to warrant widespread upgrading when one considers the average risk
and realistic economic discount factors. However, the emerging
potential for earthquake prediction could substantially alter this
economic environment to one in which decisions to up~rade hazardous
structures may be made by stimulating the investment of substantially
larger amounts to obtain improved seismic performance in selected
areas. For this reason, research on upgrading and reinforcing existing
hazardous structures will be greatly expanded in the coming years.
Particular attention will be given to western masonry structures and
to other potentially hazardous building types prevalent in the eastern
midwestern United States.
PAGENO="0089"
85
POLICY (FY1978 Proposed Budget: $5,000,000)
This research area Is directed at facilitating the utilization of
research findings developed in the NSF and USGS research programs on
earthquake hazards by private citizens and organizations, local corrmunities,
and State and Federal agencies. It focuses research on such social
adjustments to earthquakes as preparedness, relief and rehabilitation,
as well as on identifying factors related to the actual adoption of
known social and technological solutions to disaster-generated
problems.
The specific objectives of this research area are to:
o Increase the base of knowledge on alternative social adjustments
to ~arthquakes;~. -
o Identify the social, economic, political, legal and related
factors which facilitate or hinder the adoption of both social
and technological solutions to earthquak" hazards;
o Facilitate the beneficial utilization of earthquake hazard
mitigation measures by devising effective techni4ues for dis-
seminating information to the public and decisionmakers at
local, *State and national levels;and,
o Investigate measures which will reduce possible negative social,
economic, and political consequences of earthquake predictiOns;
* and warnings.
Dissemination of research results Is vital in any effort to Increase
the capability of both public and private officials to Implement
PAGENO="0090"
86
earthquake and other hazard mitigation measures. There is a need for
knowledge on the most effective ways to disseminate information to
relevant groups and organizations before, during, and following
earthquakes and other disasters. More effective means must be found to
increase the interaction between the research and user communities so
that important findings on building construction, emergency preparedness,
relief and rehabilitation, insurance, and emergency communications
become known to individuals, and to public and private agencies with
hazard mitigation capabilities and responsibilities. Major efforts
are being initiated in these vital areas of technology transfer and
public pąlicy.
FUNDNIEF1TAL STUDIES (FY1978 Proposed Budget: $5,300,000)
The Earth Sciences Division, in the Geophysics Program, supports
the Mation's principal efforts in basic earthquake research, almost
entirely conducted by universities. The level of support has risen
rather steadily from $l.5M in FY1968, to $3.OM in FY1977 and to a
request of $5.3M for FY1978.
There is little doubt, at our present state of knowledge, that
any national program to predict earthquakes and identify hazards should
be based on a program of in-depth studies and measurements of a fundamental
nature directed at the development of a thorough understanding of
the natural phenomena involved.
PAGENO="0091"
87
Dr. EGGERS. Thank you, sir. Let me just say the following: Dr. Thiel
certainly will be the principal witness, but I did want to join with him
in appearing before you because our earthquake research program in
the Foundation is important to me.
As you know, the Foundation has been the lead agency for earth-
quake engineering research since the inception of the RANN program.
Earthquake research has beei~ in the Foundation for a total of about
10 years now. The total expenditure of funds, I bel~eve, is now on the
order of about $35 million.
As you also know, Mr. Chairman, from the many times I have testi-
fied before you in the past, we have from the outset of this activity
placed very great emphasis on the coupling of the research with the
user community.
Our most recent evaluations of the utilization of the results of that
effort indicate many billions, indeed tens of billions of dollars of con-
struction in the United States have utilized the results of that earth-
quake engineering effort.
One thing we have learned over the past several years to be of very
great importance in this type of activity is what we tend to refer to
as systematic and in-depth post-disaster audits.
Speaking now of the San Fernando earthquake, I might say that
one of the most profitable efforts on our part to learn better how to
design buildings came as a result of the extensive study of the damages
resulting from that earthquake.
We invested some $21/2 million in study and dissemination of that
information. As you know, among other things, the design codes for
all earthen dams in California have been changed as a result of the
findings, including especially the findings of soil liquefaction, and
there have been studies and reviews of all earthen dams in California
since then.
Mr. BnowN. Can't you make those studies in some other State and
avoid having to wait for an earthquake in California? [Laughter.]
Dr. EGGERS. Well, we will entertain any recommendations you have
on that. [Laughter.]
We do study the disasters in foreign countries, but I think I should
quit talking now, Mr. Chairman. With your permission I will turn the
testimony over to our principal witness, Dr. Thiel, who has had many
years of experience in this area.
Mr. BROWN. Without objection, your statement will be included in
full in the record also.
Dr. THIEL. Thank you. While we are all aware of the horror of an
earthquake occurrence, it must also be kept in mind that we are in-
vesting funds every day in construction to meet earthquake-resistant
building codes and we are paying annual insurance premiums to pro-
tect us from future financial loss in the event that an earthquake occurs.
Indeed, these current costs on an annual basis are probably as great
as the damage that can be expected from future earthquakes, on an
annual basis. Affecting a reduction in these multifaceted impacts of
earthquakes in an equitable, efficient, economic way will obviously de-
pend on the careful development of implementation strategies con-
sistent with the constraints and values of the public as it goes about
its everyday activities.
PAGENO="0092"
88
The New-mark report; discussed by tr. Press presents options for
program development, a.nd its option B is the basis for the strengthen-
ing of our program as presented in the President's budget now before
the Congress. In the joint Federal program in earthquake prediction
and hazard mitigation, the NSF has responsibility for fundamental
earthquake studies, earthquake engineering and the research for
utilization.
The Earth Sciences Division in the geophysics program supports the
Nation's principal efforts in basic earthquake research, almost entirely
conducted by universities. The level of support has risen rather stead-
ily from $1.5 million in fiscal year 1968 to $3 million in fiscal year 1977
and to a request of $5.3 million for fiscal year 1978.
The R.ANN program in earthquake engineering has developed in
the past 5 years from a $2 million per year effort in fiscal year 1971 to
an $8.8 million effort in fiscal year 1977 and a proposed effort in fiscal
year 1978 of $20 million. The program is organized into three major
categories: Siting, design, and policy.
The attachment describes these programs in more detail.
In testimony delivered before this committee and other committees
of the Congress, the NSF has presented a substantial body of accom-
plishments from our earthquake engineering and geophysics programs
that have illustrated the scientific quality, utility, and application of
the programs' activities. Among these have been:
Successful prediction of small intrapla.te earthquakes in South
Carolina and New York;
Establishment of the National Information Service for Earthquake
Engineering;
Improvements in municipal and State building codes, standards and
criteria, and model codes to provide more appropriate earthquake
safety; and
Improved practices by engineers, designers, and private firms in
providing safe structures.
Indeed, we feel that the Foundation's earthquake program is one of
our most successful programs in supporting excellent basic and ap-
plied research and-in the case of the earthquake engineering pro-
gram-implementing the RANN objective of hastening the applica-
tion of results.
Legislation now before the Congress proposes first that a vigorous
research program be placed and, second, that various advisory com-
mittees, a prediction evaluation board, organizational assignments
and a new organizational unit be formed.
These latter points vary among the bills but their intent seems clear;
namely, to provide for the swift incorporation of the results of the
program into disaster mitigation Practices in the public and private
sectors.
Changes in building codes and land use regulations and the issuance
of earthquake predictions and warnings can have serious ramifications
for the social, economic, legaL and political aspects of American life.
Whether a research product has a. positive, or negative total effect in
mitigating earthquake hazards, or is ignored altogether~ could depend
very much on the method of communication and utilization of the
Product.
PAGENO="0093"
89
We counsel that great care he exercised prior to the establishment
of new organizations or committees, the realinement of functions or
the specifications of roles and responsibilities. We strongly urge that
the Congress adopt a sequential strategy regarding implementation
of the `results of the research program. First, a careful concentrated
effort to determine appropriate roles, relationships, and activities of
Federal, State, and local governmental units, and the private sector;
second, the alinement of responsibilities and allocation of authorities
to achieve the purpose of improved public safety; third, the proposing
of legislation as needed that aids achieving this purpose consistent
with the appropriate Federal role; and fourth, vigorously pursuing a
combined research and implementation program for the public's
benefit.
We are of the opinion that the incorporation of the drafting sugges-
tion of Dr. Press into the bills under consideration will achieve these
purposes.
We have reached these conclusions based both upon our experience
in managing research applications programs and through an examina-
tion of the results of several RANN-supported research studies now
underway or recently completed.
The Foundation's research applied to national needs program has
developed considerable expertise in managing programs that intend to
both support research and foster its application. RANN also supports,
through its intergovernmental program, major efforts to increase the
capacity and capability of State and local government to use science
and technology, especially newly developed, `in their operations and
policy setting. Our experience in `both of these areas indicates that for
research to be incorporated rapidly and effectively into public prac-
tice, the intended beneficiary at both the public and private levels
must be involved in the:
Establishment of objectives; formulation of the research programs;
determination of the implementation strategy; oversight and conduct
of the program; and finally, through prototypical application.
The Newmark report presents `a soundly reasoned base to achieve
the research objectives of the Cranston bill (S. 126), and indeed, the
user communities were involved in the setting of its objectives and in
the formulation of the research program.
It is extremely important that the care taken in designing the
research program be `duplicated in designing the implementation
strategy.
The proposal of Dr. Press to pursue a "Newmark" type panel study
involving State and local officials and elements of the private sector
to develop an implementation strategy in our view is required prior
to the creation of institutional arrangements and functions such as
those proposed in current legislation before the Congress.
An esential ciuestion is: Do we know enough at this point to begin
structuring major institutional measures for mitigating the direct and
indireėt consequences of earthquakes? The answer to this question
would seem to be, "No." Until more knowledge has been accumulated
on how population perceives, responds to, and recovers from earth-
quakes, we need to move in a deliberate rather than a precipitous
fashion. The narrow knowledge base that we are working with would
seem to require such caution.
PAGENO="0094"
90
Take, for example, the case of earthquake prediction. The Haas-
Mileti research on the "Socioeconomic and Political Consequences of
Earthquake Prediction" suggests that with the leadtimes earthquake
predictions will probably provide in the future, it will be possible
to initiate a range of social, economic, and technological adaptations
to mitigate the. impact of the predicted events.
After a credible earthquake prediction, families, business, and gov-
ernmental agencies will try to act in a manner favorable to their own
interests.
Investors will generally put their money outside of the target area,
or invest very selectively within the area, on the assumption that this
will lower their risk. Development planning and construction in the
private sector will be first drastically reduced, and then almost en-
tirely curtailed.
Local governments will likewise stop or sharply reduce capital con-
struction projects. Influenced by the construction industry, business
in general will slow its activity, unemployment will rise sharply, es-
pecially in the building trades, and local government will suffer severe
declines in sales and property tax revenues. In the face of revenue loss,
there will undoubtedly be an increase in demand for public services.
This study, while tentative, indicates that a number of questions from
an implementation standpoint will have to be squarely faced. Among
these are:
How does the liability of a private employer change, if at all, in the
face of the yet to be proven science of earthquake prediction? Are
the liability considerations different for the Government as employer?
Should regulations governing the operation of financial institu-
tions and insurance carriers he altered for firms involved in the target
community?
Should the number of weeks during which unemployment compen-
sation is available be lengthened?
These points are indicative of the uncertainties that are placed
before us in planning for the respoiise to an earthquake prediction.
Similar problems exist in the areas of building codes, land use proce-
dures, financial management, insurance, and legal considerations of
adopting any of a variety of earthquake hazard mitigation procedures,
whether they are tied to an earthquake prediction or not.
One of the most serious problems Government officials with disaster
mitigation responsibilities may have is communicating with a threat-
ened population. Threatened populations may not understand or
indeed choose to ignore the advice offered by responsible Government
authorities. One way that this communication barrier may be reduced
is by involving larger numbers of individual citizens and civic groups
in disaster mitigation planning along with Government officials. Such
an approach has not been tried frequently, yet it. promises greater
understanding on the part of citizens and increased commitment to
disaster mitigation.
The Government might be advised to attempt such an approach
before moving ahead with developing new mechanisms in parts of
the country subjected to earthquake risk. A RANN project with the
Council of State Governments, "State Government Policy Options for
the IJtilization of Earthquake Prediction Technology~" which will be
PAGENO="0095"
91
completed this coming spring, provides one vehicle to achieve this
public participation. It involves a variety of Government and other
persons throughout the country in a consideration of ways to enhance
the potential social benefits of the developing earthquake prediction
capability.
Its results will provide good policy guidance on how best to struc-
ture Federal/State earthquake prediction institutions and procedures.
We believe that these studies support Dr. Press' suggestions for
modification of the proposed legislation. With these modifications, we
are supportive of the proposed legislation and look forward to working
with the Congress in formulating and implementing an effective pro-
gram in earthquake prediction and hazard mitigation.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BROWN. I would assume from the laudatory comments made
about Dr. Press' proposal, that they probably had some role in
writing it?
Dr. THIEL. That would be a safe assumption.
Mr. BROWN. I applaud you for developing a uniform approach to
tins. I might comment that I think your statement is a very thoughtful
and rational explanation of some of the problems involved as we move
ahead in this area.
I am struck by the parallel between the problems that face us here
and the problems that face us in other areas where there are potential
disasters that might face us.
We don't react rationally sometimes. There is danger from flood,
from war, from environmental catastrophe of all kinds, including the
ozone depletion Problem. These are in a sense similar problems, in
many cases with a common base of either scientific knowledge or lack
of scientific knowledge.
It strikes me that we would be well advised in connection with
developing a national policy in this area to treat it as the scientists
might rather than a politician, as an exercise in how we go about
rat~onaliy developing a capability that does not-that expands our
knowledge, that does not overreact and that involves the concerned
public at whatever level in the most practical way that we can get
operable results.
Some of the things that. you warn of here we. experience today. For
example, a fear of nuclear powerplant siting. Again it is connected
in large part to seismic fears, although there are other fears also
involved. But we might in developing this legislation set an example
of how we move into areas where we are not quite sure of what we
ought to do but we are fairly sure. that we ought to be domg some-
thing. . .
If we could adopt that type of an attitude we might come out with
better legislation.
Dr. THIEL. I am in total agreement. .
I ~uight point out that the earthquake engineering program is con-
tained within the RANN program on disasters and natural huzards
which is looking at other hazard forms. There is an important ~ōint
that von have brought out and that is that. earthquakes are but one
of a litany of environmental insults that the body politic is subject to.
There is gie'it simil~rit~ in the soci'ii response of the Public to different
types of threats.
PAGENO="0096"
92
We will be pursuing a policy of relating earthquake activities in
the RANN program with an eye toward what the impacts are on
other types of hazards.
Mr. BROWN. Withm the Foundation which is oriented basically
toward the R.ANN program which is l)Ointed toward the engineering
aspects of the problem, you have commented on the importance of
policy and social and psychological aspects of this problem.
Is there central coordination for both types of research within the
RANN program and/or within the Foundation? In other words, you
don't try to separate out from the program research on what the
public reaction will be. for example, to an erroneous prediction from
the general policy problems involving developing this research?
Dr. TIJIEL. The areas of research we are discussing here are adminis-
tratively all within the division which I head, the Advanced Environ-
mental Research and Technology Division. In many cases the research
support associated with earthauakes is managed by the same indi-
vidual who manages other activities with respect to other hazards.
So we have not separated them managerially from one another. We
have made a. very strong effort to keen them together.
Dr. EGGERS. If I could amplify a little bit on Dr. Thiel's response
to the question, Mr. Chairman, it has been our management philosophy
from the outset in the RANN program that the hardware and soft-
ware issues of a problem have to be dealt with together. SO you will
find, for example~ in Dr. Thiel's division that lie has engineers, sociolo-
gists, and economists. They pooi their capabilities and go forward with
an effective management on an interdisciplinary basis. They bring to
bear the total expertise required to deal with the problem.
Mr. BROWN. That is the problem I am getting at, the difficulties in
managing a large-scale interdisciplinary program. That in itself is
almost an area for research in some situations.
Mr. Dornan?
Mr. DORNAN. No questions, thank you.
Dr. THIEL. You raised the question concerning the New Madrid
earthquake. There have been several studies that have attempted to
identify the nature of the potential damage that could be caused by a
recurrence of the 1811-12 shocks. Those estimates, at least in terms of
those which I give credibility to, look at the $~ to $10 billion property
damage loss levels. So it. poses a very serious threat in that part of the
country.
Mr. BROWN. If I understand correctly, the present geological theory
is that this particular zone has a resonance to it which tends to amplify
the original shock, to spread it rather widely over a large area, that the
plate structure there is not broken up but rather continuous.
In this way, at least, I have, heard some geologists express this to me.
Is that a proper understanding?
Dr. THIEL. If you look at the size of the damage area for equivalent
size earthquakes between the Los Angeles versus the rnidcontinent, the
same energy release w-ill cause damage over an area approximately 100
times larger in the Midwest.
Mr. BRowN. Thank you.
Mr. THORNTON. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Well, gentlemen. I want to thank both of you and just
reiterate 01i1' apologies for the time inconvenience this morning. I hope
we can continue to call on you for help. Thank you very much.
PAGENO="0097"
93
I would now like to invite Congressman Glenn Anderson, our dis-
tinguished colleague from Los Angeles. He is accompanied by Council-
man David Cunningham who will also give us the benefit of his
experience.
Gentlemen, we apologize for any inconvenience for changes in our
schedule.
Congressman Anderson, you may proceed.
[A biographical sketch of Mr. David Cunningham follows:]
BIOGRAPHY
Councilman David Cunningham was first elected to the Los Angeles City
Council from the 10th District on September 18, 1973, in a special election
held to fill the seat vacated by Mayor Tom Bradley. He was re-elected on April
1, 1974, by an overwhelming majority of the vote, to a full four year term.
He currently serves as Chairman of the Building and Safety Committee, and
is a member of the Public Health, Welfare and Environment and Governmental
Efficiency Committees. In addition he is a member of the Special Committee
on Equal Opportunities.
Councilman Cunningham has been actively and deeply involved in the prob-
lems of the Central Los Angeles 10th District since he settled in the District
immediately after his graduation from college.
Councilman Cunningham has initiated many forward-thinking programs in
the Tenth District Council District as part of his overall plan to upgrade the
economic and social status of the community. He opened the first field office
in the District's history to make government more accessible to the residents. The
Field Office assists hundreds of constituents every month with various problems
involving all levels of government.
Cunningham sponsors the Tenth Council District Women's Steering Committee,
a group he founded to encourage women to participate in their local community.
The Steering Committee holds an annual Women's Leadership Conference where
workshops are offered to discuss and encourage community activities and various
projects the committee has worked on during the year.
Cunningham has also been instrumental in founding the Mid-City Chamber
of Commerce, the first organization of this type for businesses in the Tenth
District.
Councilman Cunningham has recently opened a Community Services Office
to give community organizations assistance and guidance in attempting to achieve
their specific goals.
Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., appointed Cunningham to the California
Council on Crimir~al Justice, the state board charged with earmarking federal
funds for crime prevention programs in California.
Born 40 years ago on the Southside of Chicago. David Cunningham and his
sisters traveled extensively with their father and brother, who are 1)0th min-
isters, until finally settling in St. Louis, Missouri. There, Dave attended Charles
Sumner High School graduating near the top of his class. He then went to the
Harriet Beecher Stowe Teachers College and completed two years of study.
At the age of nineteen, Dave joined the U.S. Air Force where he rose to the
rank of sergeant. At the conclusion of his service, he was honorably discharged
at March Air Force Base in Riverside.
Upon his graduation with a B.A. in political science and economics, Dave had
the honor of being selected as an intern by the prestigious CORO Foundation,
which trains selected students for roles in government `and politics. While with
CORO he had the opportunity to study and work in such diverse agencies as
the L.A. County Public Health Department, the United Auto Workers, and as
Administrative Assistant to Assemblyman Charles Warren.
In 1965, Dave accepted a position with the Dukane Corp., a firni which manu-
factures medical and educational training aids. As a regional manager, he was
afforded an opportunity to develop his business skills while traveling through
West Africa on behalf of the firm. .
In 1967. he was asked to head the Hughes Aircraft Community Relations Pro-
cram. Shortly, thereafter, he became co-founder of Cunningham, Short. Berryman
& Associates, Inc., which specializes in solving governmental and economic
problems.
92-560 0 - 77 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
94
In 1970, Dave received his Master of Arts degree in Urban Studies from
Occidental College; after which he was asked to serve as Special Consultant
to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Through the years, Dave has been involved as ,a volunteer in a broad range of
community organizations, including the California Minority Employment Council,
past vice-president of the CORO Alumni Association; Chairman of the Executive
Committee and a member of the Board of the Interracial Council for Business
Opportunity; member of the World Affairs Council; member of the Natioi~al
Urban League; and 1971-72 Chairman of the Los Angeles Brotherhood Crusade.
STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN ANDERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS PROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY
COUNCILMAN DAVID CUNNINGHAM, CITY OP LOS ANGELES
Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of this dis-
tinguished committee. I want to thank you very much for the oppor-
tunity to testify today on legislation drafted to reduce the hazards of
an earthquake in our country.
I am pleased to be accompanied by the Honorable David Cunning-
ham, city councilman of the city of Los Angeles. In oui- country, the
States of California and Alaska are considered to be extremely vul-
nerable to earthquakes. This is not a west coast problem, however,
since some 70 million Americans live in the 39 States that are wholly
or partly in earthquake areas, this legislation should be of vital
interest to them.
During our 200-year history major eai-thquakes have struck as
follows:
Cape Ann, Mass., 1755.
New Madrid, Mo., 1811-12.
Charleston, S.C., 1886.
San Francisco, Calif., 1906.
Long Beach, Calif., 1933.
Seattle, Wash., 1949.
Hebgen Lake, Mont., 1959.
The Good Friday earthquake near Anchorage. Alaska, 1964.
San Fernando Valley, Calif., 1971.
This has resulted in the loss of approximately 1.600 lives and prop-
erty damage totaling $1.8 billion.
The potential for another disaster is self-evident. Last year in the
w-ake of the worst earthquake to ~ti-ike Guatemala in 20 years. esti-
mates of 22,000 dead, 74~000 injured and damages in excess of $600
million were put forth. WTorlclwide some 74 million people have died
as a result of earthquakes. The second quarter of the 20th century saw
350,000 people lose their lives in~ earthquakes and related disasters.
On September 20, 1975, the House voted down a bill that would
have established an earthquake hazard reduction program. It was
ironic to me that the House earlier approved $25 million in relief to an
earthquake stricken Guatemala, but refused to take action forestalling
a similar disaster in our own country.
After the tragedy legislation calling for emergency relief, rehabili-
tation, and humanitarian assistance is fine for Guatemala, but I hope
this committee and the Congress will pass preventive legislation for
the United States.
PAGENO="0099"
95
Lately it is believed that strain in the zone known as the San
Andreas fault in California is building up, causing the Palmdale
bulge uplift. The San Andreas fault extends from the Imperial Valley
at the Mexican border north to San Bernardino, Calif., where it curves
west rnto the San Fernando Valley. North of Los Angeles the fault
resumes a northerly course and runs into the Pacific just west of San
Francisco. The uplift is a signal to the experts that a major earthquake
will occur in the future. As a result California's Seismic Safety Com-
mission has passed a resolution calling the Palmdale bulge a possible
threat to public safety.
The challenge here is to establish a well-funded, coordinated, and
effective Federal earthquake program. The inevitability of another
earthquake in our country is well recognized. It is simply foolish to
be other than the best prepared we can be for it.
Thank you ~rery much.
At this time I will present Councilman Cunningham.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and mem-
hers of this distinguished committee. I am David Cunningham for
the 10th district of the city of Los Angeles and also chairman of the
Los Angeles City Council building and safety committee which has
had to wrestle with this problem with reference to structures.
I am testifying today before your committee in favor of H.R. 35
and emphasize the need for legislation providing Federal support
for long term, low interest loans to enable owners of unreinforced,
masonry bearing wall buildings to meet building code requirements
for seismic safety.
While research and development of earthquake prediction tech-
nology is important, it seems essential to me to take immediate steps
to provide Federal support for a program to protect and conserve
structures in existing communities such as Los Angeles which are
highly developed. The amount of financial support which will be neces-
sary to accomplish this is far beyond the scope of local resources.
While the potential hazard of earthquakes is a serious matter for
communities throughout the country, it is no secret that the city of
Los Angeles, along with other west coast communities, has reason to
treat this potential hazard with a great sense of urgency.
The State Seismic Safety Commission has found that the bulge in
Southern California is a threat to public safety and in subsequent
resolutions has requested State and local agencies to take the steps to
mitigate the potential disaster, stimulate preparedness, and inform the
public.
We are today concerned that we have not done enough to safeguard
our citizens against a very large quake either in terms of accurate
earthquake forecasting or in terms of structural specifications and
design.
As chairman of the city's building and safety committee, I have
recently completed a thorough review of our owii situation within
the city. I would like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to tell your
committee about the problem as we view it in Los Angeles.
We currently have an estimated 14,000 buildings within the city
limits which are extremely vulnerable under our existing seismic code
requirements. Many of these are private and public structures of
unreinforced masonry built before October 6, 1933.
PAGENO="0100"
96
That is a landmark date because that was subsequent to which the
devastating Long Beach earthquake occurred. We are particularly
concerned with these structures. My committee has estimated that
should a major earthquake hit the Los Angeles area before proper
modifications can be made to these buildings, as many as 48,000 casual-
ties and 12,000 fatalities could occur-not to mention the untold
amount of property and general economic loss and dislocation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go beyond the scope of this
bill and possibly beyond the jurisdiction of this committee and propose
the type of additional Federal program which I feel is sorely needed.
As I have told you today the city of Los Angeles, its council, on which
I serve, and its mayor, Tom Bradley, have taken positive action to
address the issue.
The city of Los Angeles has established a task force with responsi-
bility to conduct a citywide. survey to identify and catalog all pre-1934
unreinforced, masonry bearing wall buildings and to develop a corn
prehensive earthquake safety ordinance.
After 1933 statewide minimum standards were enacted.
The city's civil defense a.nd disaster corps is holding tra.ining exer-
cises to activate appropriate city departments, familiarizing them with
the problems they may face. iii the event, of a sizable earthquake and to
set up a cooperative organization and communication network with
county, State, and Federal and private emergency service organiza-
tions.
The mayor has also established an earthquake iiredict.ion task force
to deal with the problems associated with a reliable earthquake predic-
tion. I also serve as the city council representative on that task force.
It is on the basis of these actions, some of which parallel the. pro-
grains sponsored and proposed in H.R.. 35, that I feel there is sufficient
reason to come before the Congress and request. some form of economic
relief assistance. Mr. Chairman, while we auplaud your a.pproach as
cont.ained in the subject legislation, we. feel that there. are area.s in the
country where the need for action extends beyond the present scope
of the bill.
In those communities, where it can be demonstrated that there is a
real and present danger of a major earthquake, and where the local
government has ta.ken positive steps to control location and structural
strength of new and existing buildings then there should be made
available the type of Federal assistance which would permit the com-
munity to meet these goals without~ imposing undue economic hard-
ship. The Federal assistance could take several forms, possibly includ-
ing outright grants. However. I would like to recommend here today
that legislation providing long-term, low-interest Federal loans be
considered.
~Te are confident. that the private and business interest.s in our city
will not dodge their responsibility in providing then for the safety
of their employees and customers. Additionally. given the nature of the
problem and the involvement of the Government, they have a right
to the very limited type of assistance which I am calling for today on
behalf of the city of Los Angeles.
I might add we also plan to ask other appropriate congressional com-
mittees to consider some method of providing this assistance. We are
not satisfied that we need to wait until the disaster occurs as some
PAGENO="0101"
97
have told us. We feel that in those cases where the local government
has taken positive steps to insure compliance to specific seismic stand-
ards, Federal and State assistance is justified now.
Mr. Chairman, I commend your committee for the concern it has
demonstrated for the problem of earthquake hazards. Clearly it war-
rants immediate congressional attention at the national level. We all
know how the Nation would rally to help a community devastated by
a severe earthquake. Who then would not find it a good investment for
the Nation to take measures today which will reduce the potential loss
in terms of life and property?
Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. I commend you on your
statement and on what you have been doing in Los Angeles. We are
pleased to see that as usual you are ahead of other jurisdictions in ap-
proaching problems of this sort.
Mr. Dornan, do you have any questions?
Mr. DORNAN. I just wondered about this Long Beach earthquake.
Was that tied in with the San Andreas fault and have there been
any tremors in that area with its high population density?
Mr. ANDERSON. Long Beach is not part of the San Andreas fault.
It is considerably west of it. Mr. Chairman, these two gentlemen are
from my own area so we are talking local things. Other districts are
adjoining. There is another fault called the West Basin that divides
our district so if you drill fOr water on one side you get it-and on the
other side you don't get it. I think that West Basin is more related
to the Long Beach earthquake than anything else you can really
identify.
But almost everyone you talk to says well, no, that is a different one
because it is a highly technical subject.
Mr. DORNAN. Even though we talk a great deal about the San
Andrea.s fault, there are all sorts of minor faults that given a violent
earthquake could cause as much damage as something that would come
from the San Andreas.
Mr. ANDERSON. I am not expert in this at all but I would assume that
if the Palmdale bulge is as drastic as some of the experts think it is,
and if it does have a real jar, it could set something off in some other
part of California, for instance in the West Basin.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Cunningham, on the building restrictions in the
Los Angeles area, will there be continued hearings this year in depth
from some of the business interests that are dragging their feet but
possibly with some justification because of the economic implications?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Sometime ago we attempted to write an ordi-
nance. As a matter of fact we did write it. WTe went to the council with
it. One of the penalties it carried was that we would post our buildings
that were pre-1934 construction that were of this masonry wall bear-
ing type with these hazard signs clear to the public that should you
enter this building and should an earthquake occur more than likely
you would find there was a high risk and you might in some way be
injured.
We held a series of extensive hearings and at first we could not find
too many people who were concerned about the fact that we would go
forward with this piece of legislation. We took it to the council and
PAGENO="0102"
98
there was a big brouhaha by the public brought forth at that time.
Since then we have returned it to my committee.
We have formed this task force made up of the public, made up of
business interests, made up of structural engineers, mechanical engi-
neers, and several others to put together based on this survey that we
are doing of the 14,000 buildings a task force that can develop this
ordinance.
We realize that there is one imperfection that we are faced with once
we do that. lYe will have the ordinance that says you must bring your
building up to these standards, that you must modify your buildiiig,
reinforce it. We understand from the experts that there are several
modifications which can be made.
But the problem is that the expense involved, is prohibitive. What
has been said to us by many of the managers and owners of these build-
ings since something like 70 percent of them are residential struc-
tiires-sonie of the statistics we have looked at indicate that. residential
structures contain about 72~000 people, housing for 72,000 people.
We don't want. to see all of that housing stock demolished, destroyed,
walked away and abandoned by these owners. We feel the only way we
will be able to get a well-thought-out program and get compliance with
the ordinance is to have the kind of low-interest dollars, low-interest
loans available to these owners to repair the buildings.
I might also add that our council is on record-we have gone on
record supporting the seeking of legislation to do what we are trying
to accomplish today. The businessmen in our community have not
been dragging their feet. They have now become part of this action.
They are prepared to move forward to support whatever we do as
long as they see that the necessary dollars are there. I might add also
in reference to the question that you asked, Congressman, and as you
know, the city has in its general plan what is called a seismic safety
element of our plan.
We have located and done some mapping of all of the facts that
occur within the city limits and the city jurisdiction of the city of
Los Angeles. lYe sit on a highly vulnerable area of a number of faults,
San Andreas, the one most talked about is only one.
are in a highly earthquake-prone area. It is almost like play-
ing Russian roulette.. We know that we. have to take some action but
we need assistance in order to accomplish what we think we can do.
Mr. DORNAN. I have no further questions.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Thornton?
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Cunningham, I want to congratulate you on
your very fine testimony, particularly on the thought which you are
giving to possible procedures to be followed following the Earth
detection and earthquake research which this bill is directed to. In
that regard Dr. Press has suggested as you heard this morning through
his prepared statement. in addition to deal with ways to deal with the
aftermath.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We wholeheartedly support that. One of our
thoughts is that that should be made one of the prerequisites for
having this kind of Federal assistance available to you. Any local
jurisdiction or local ent.ity tha.t has taken the necessary preventive
stens to try to develop a well-thought-out program for construction
safety elements as well as the ability to include, its entire population
PAGENO="0103"
99
and its entire interests, centers of interest involved in it, should be one
of the requirements for the availability of such Federal assistance.
Mr. THORNTON. I would also like to welcome our colleague, Glenn
Anderson, and recognize his significant contribution to this area of
concern. I think it is particularly appropriate t~kat the leading edge of
this is being taken by people who are most intimately concerned about
the possibility of recurring earthquakes in the California area but
that it is also important to recognize that there is a broad national
purpose and that earthquakes are not limited to any one section of the
country.
*We appreciate the leadership which you have provided, Mr. Ander-
son. I want to thank you for that.
Mr. DORNAN. Just one further observation where we might prevent
the killing of two birds with one stone. There are some naturalists
who will be worried about earthquakes but who don't see any danger
from possible nuclear confrontation and the reverse is sometimes
true. People now interested in national defense could care very little
about natural disaster.
Is there some way to approach this with a civil defense program
that would take both natural and manmade disasters into account and
get the people's attention this way? I know that a great warning label
on a building, this building may be hazardous to your health, is some-
thing people are going to disregard when they could not seem to
care less about lung cancer.
I am somewhat of an amateur archeologist. When I deal with history
and long-range periods, some of the greatest buildings ever created
by mankind are eventually caught up with, whether it is the great
earthquake of the 11th century or the 16th. Is there any way civil
defense can be used?
Mr. CuxxINGHA~r. We found through our task force, not my build-
ing and safety task force, but a task force made up by the mayor
concerned with earthquake predictability. One of the things they have
run recently was a simulated earthquake recurrence. It was published
in the paper to make it clear that it was a simulation. The amount
and degree of the disaster fatality account, as well as the economic
loss occurred,, as well as some of the devices and measures that were
used indeed to provide relief or to make certain that our citizens were
cared for.
It is the intent of this mayor's task force to go through these simu-
lated disaster problems as a result of earthquakes located in various
areas. This is to begin to sensitize our public to what measures and to
what steps can be taken.
Part of what our program is now as we go through this thing is to
begin to publish the pamphlet kind of information that will make it
clear to our citizens some of the things that they did do best to protect
themselves against it. We also happen to think that one of the first
things that mitigates against the potential loss' is to begin with the
proper kinds of structures and to make certain that these structures
are indeed constructed in the proper location with proper zoning
protection and with the proper kind of construction protection.
I have found-I don't know to what degree I have become an ex-
pert-but I have found from a series of hearings' that we had that
involved geologists and those who deal in seismic safety managements
PAGENO="0104"
100
and mechanical and structural engineers that there are things that
will mitigate against this release of energy through the building
materials.
We found one of the elements is the sale and the ability of the con-
struction that you put on that soil and its ability to oscillate or to
ride with that soil and have the kind of resilience that allows for the
force to be dissipated, that you can have that kind of building that is
safe to that degree.
But these are elements that we have to know. We have to evalu-
ate them and then we have to make certain that the construction mate-
rials are available and the construction techniques are available, as
well as to inform our citizens what they can do in case of an impending
earthquake or in case they find themselves in an earthquake.
What is the safest part of the building? Our building and safety
department can't tell you what is the safest part of a building and
where you should go should an earthquake occur.
Mr. IDORNAN. These 55-story buildings-the one put up by Atlantic
Richfield, all of these people came to you and availed themselves of
all the latest science and technology?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They are built under rigid seismic safety codes
for our city. I might indicate to you that t.he Union Bank Building
which is there which is a 33-story structure had been built prior to
the 1971 earthquake.
I might indicate to you that there was a great deal of oscillation
in the building. I happen to have a friend that worked for Jeffrey
Bank Note which is at the top of that building who got a very good
ride in his office chair from side to side. But the building had no
damage to it, no structural damage to it and it is still standing and
it is built under our existing codes for new structures.
As you know, we have just-just this past Saturday there was a
rededication over the spot where we lost Mount Olive Hospital. A
new hospital has been put on that site with the stringent building
code requirements that we have adopted for new construction.
We have no problem in terms of our new construction codes. Our
problem lies with these 14,000 buildings that we must recycle. We know
that they are potentially a hazard to their-it is a hazard for them
to continue to be inhabited. We need help to do something about that.
Mr. DORNAN. Could I ask ou to elaborate on your decade here in
the Congress on this civil defense issue, having come from an area
where there was a major earthquake in 1933. Is Long Beach prepared
with stores and supplies to survive any kind of a civil disaster,
natural or man created?
Mr. ANDERSON. Long Beach has built a number of new buildings
since the earthquake of 1933 and all of these have met at different
stages the requirements at that time.
Of course our most recent buildings, almost all of them have gone
through the same procedures that the city of Los Angeles has. They
have areas of protection and so on, and directions of what to do and
so on. Your other comment earlier, I see a relationship between the
civil defense and the earthquake tragedy, not running two separate
organizations, but I think there would be great value in combining
them.
PAGENO="0105"
101
I assume you would use in many cases the same kind of leadership
from each community, people who are going to be concerned about
warning their neighbors under one circumstance would be equally
concerned on the other.
They would probably be the ones who would learn what to do and
what to advise a person to do in case of a civil defense problem. They
would also advise the neighbors what to do in case of earthquake.
I think it would be foolish to have two separate approaches.
I think that brings strength to both of them.
Mr. DORNAN. After the February 9 earthq~iake I remember how
difficult it was for some of the police agencies to get people in the San
Fernando Valley to evacuate their homes.
Two weeks ago on television there was a program based upon a
very smooth burglary operation that actually went around in full fire
department gear warning people to evacuate their houses and as soon
as they left their houses with the doors unlocked they went in and
inventoried the house and cleared it out, emptying everything of
value into vans. I hope it was not a case of another one of these ideas
of a screen writer having an original idea that t~he criminal people
pick up later.
But this would cause people iiot to leave their homes in an emer-
gency. I think we have to have Government agencies that have the
respect and confidence of the people to handle these emergencies.
Mr. ANDERSON. People that t~hey know if their own neighbors-
Mr. DORNAN. Right, people that will be able to evacuate people with
speed and safety. If you have all the great devices in the world to
warn about earthquake and a nuclear attack, and people don't pay
attention, it has all been in vain.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you gentlemen, both of you. Mr. Cunningham,
may I express the ¶hope that the next earthquake that hits your area,
that your city will be spared?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have escaped a number of. them but we felt
the tremors. By the time we find out what relief is available for the
problem, the inner city is always late getting the relief. I recall that
in 1971. I lost a house as a result of that and never was able to get
repairs done to it.
We appreciate your concern. Thank you very much.
Mr. ANDERSON. I did not ignore you. [Laugthter.]
Mr. BROWN. Our next witness is Dr. James Skehan, director of the
Weston Observatory, Weston, Mass.. representing the Association of
Professional Geological Scientists. He is accompanied by Dr. Edward
F. Chiburis. We welcome both of you gentlemen. We extend our
usual apologies for the time problem.
[A biographical sketch of Professor James W. Skehan, S.J.
follows.]
PAGENO="0106"
102
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 Richmond, 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 Natioanl Association of Geology Teachers (NAGT),
in the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG)
and in the Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG).
Father Skehan'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 Biography,
Outstanding 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.
May 1975
PAGENO="0107"
103
STATEMENT OF DR. JAMES W. SKEHAN AND DR. EDWARD F. CHI-
BURIS, WESTON OBSERVATORY-BOSTON COLLEGE, ON BEHALF
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS
Dr. SKEI-IAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for
necessary background, I am representing the Association of Profes-
sional Geological Scientists on behalf of whom this testimony is given.
It is an organization of over 3,000 geologists whose professional activ-
ity encompasses many fields of geology and geophysics. I personally
am director of Boston College's `Weston Observatory, a research insti-
tute in geophysics and geology.
With me is professor Edward Chiburis who heads up our seismology
program at Weston Observatory. I think it is relevant to the present
topic to indicate that Weston Observatory has the longest record of
monitoring earthquake activity of any currently active institution in
Northeastern United States.
We have recognized the importance of monitoring earthquakes, the
Jesuit order in particular, our observing order dating back to 1930,
funded entirely until the 1950's by the Jesuit order. Additionally I
served last year on the earthquake hazards committee of the Associa-
t.ion of Engineering Geologists.
The bill appears to be adequate in its overall emphasis and scope.
That there is a critical and timely need for such legislation is clear as
evidenced, among others, the increased construction activity in areas
of high and moderate seismic risk, the siting of nuclear powerplants
throughout the United States and unusually high and devastating seis-
micity during the past several years in various parts of the world.
The potential for catastrophe exists in many metropolitan areas in
the United States should an earthquake of the size of the San Fernando
event of 1971 occur in any of them. In this regard although the Eastern
United States is commonly, and erroneously believed to be an earth-
quake free-I refer to data in the data bulletin published by the
Northeastern United States Seismic Network.
[The above-mentioned material follows:]
PAGENO="0108"
104
UCONN-NUREG-O2O8-OO9
NORTHEASTERN U. S. SEISMIC NETWORK
BULLETIN NO. 4
OF
SEISMICITY OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
July 1, 1976 - September 30, 1976
Compiled and Edited by
E.F. Chiburis, University of Connecticut
R.O. Ahner, Weston Observatory
Coordinator
Paul W. Pomeroy, United States Geological Survey
January 1977
MEMBERS
Weston Observatory of Boston College
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
University of Connecticut
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory of Columbia University
Pennsylvania State University
Delaware Geological Survey
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
United States Geological Survey
National Science Foundation
New York State Energy and Resources Development Authority
New York State Science Service
PAGENO="0109"
105
1.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Partial or full support from various agencies for the
operation of the Northeastern U.S. Seismic Network is grate-
fully acknowledged. The agencies providing support to members
of NEUSSN are as follows:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Office of Reactor
Safety Research,
The United States Geological Survey - Office of Earth-
quake Studies,
The National Science Foundation - Geophysics Program,
The New York State Energy and Resources Development
Authority, and
The New York State Science Service.
Data from the Seismic Network operated by the Consolidated
Edison Company of New York were provided to NEUSSN and the
receipt of these data is gratefully acknowledged.
In addition to the above operational support, equipment
was also provided by the Office of Environmental Geology of
the U.S. Geological Survey to members of NEUSSN.
The Advanced Research Projects Agency of the Department
of Defense provided a number of geophones and amplifiers to
all members of NEUSSN.
PAGENO="0110"
106
2.
ABSTRACT
This report is the fourth quarterly bulletin of seismicity
in the northeastern United States and covers the period July -
September 1976. Included are geographic maps of the seismic station
locations, the epicenters for the quarter, and the cumulative
epicenters for the four quarters. Also included are table of the
station locations and of arrival times, amplitudes, and periods
for the fourth quarterly epicenters.
PAGENO="0111"
107
3.
INTRODUCTION
This report is the fourth quarterly bulletin of seismicity
in the northeastern United States for the period July - September,
1976. The organizations supplying data for this bulletin are
Weston Observatory of Boston College, Lamont-Doherty Geological
Observatory of Columbia University, the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, the Pennsylvania State University, the Delaware
Geological Survey, and the University of Connecticut. Additional
data for earthquakes in southeastern New York and northern New
Jersey were supplied by the Consolidated Edison Indian Point
network. Arrival time data for events in Canada near the United
States were supplied by the Earth Physics Branch, Department of
Energy, Mines and Resources, Canada.
Eight seismic stations operating during this reporting
period were not listed in the previous bulletin. The eight new
stations are TRM-ME, GPD-NJ, ALX-NY, HNY-NY, IPS-NY, WND-NY,
BRV-VT, and ESJ-VT. Stations BEN-NY, DHN-NY, GFN-NY, and SSL-PA
were not operating during this reporting period. Station WFM-MA
was previously listed as WMA. The locations for stations OGDNJ
and LAF-RI have been corrected in this listing. Table I is a
list by state, of the stations operating during the period July-
September 1976. The format of the inforaatiOn included in the
table is as follows:
1. Three letter station code, as recognized by the
National Earthquake Information Center of the U.S.
Geological Survey (except some codes for the Consoli-
dated Edison and Pennsylvania State stations).
2. Station latitude, degrees_minute55ec0nd5~ north.
3. Station longitude, degrees_minute55ec0nd5~ west.
4. Station elevation, meters.
5. Geographic name of station.
6. Network operator responsible for station.
Figure 1 is a geographic map of the Northeastern U.S.
Seismic Network (NEUSSN). In New York, there are three regions
of coverage havit~g clusters of stations too dense to represent
separately: near Attica in the west, near Blue Mountain Lake
PAGENO="0112"
108
in the north, and the stations of the Indian Point nuclear
facility in the southeast.
NORTHEASTERN U.S. SEISMICITY
During the period covered by this bulletin, twenty-four
earthquakes were detected and located in the northeastern
United States; included in this total are eighteen earth-
quakes of magnitude less than one in the Blue Mountain Lake
region of New York. One earthquake occurred near the coast
of Maine and is included in the twenty-four. In addition,
three earthquakes occurred in Canada having an epicenter
within 100 kilometers of the U.S. border. Figure 2 is a
geographic map of the epicenters for July - September, 1976.
Table II is a chronological list of the epicenters in Figure 2
with the following format:
1. Date and geographic name of the event.
2. The source of epicenter determination
LDO - Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
UTC - University of Connecticut
WES - Weston Observatory
MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology
3. Origin time of the event, hours-minutes-seconds, UTC.
4. Event latitude, degrees north.
5. Event longitude, degrees west.
6. Root-mean-square error of the least-squares solution.
7. Event magnitude. Most magnitudes were computed using
the relation developed by Nuttli for the "vertical
component Lg wave"; although the wave periods of the
events in Table II are often less than one second,
the computed magnitudes appear to be consistent within
the network. Magnitudes computed using Nuttli's
relation are labelled MBN.
8. Event depth, kilometers. If the solution was restrained
to a particular depth, the letter R is appended.
For events that have epicenters determined by more than one
PAGENO="0113"
109
5.
source, each of the locations is listed.
EARTHQUAKE DATA
The station arrival times and amplitudes used for epicenter
and magnitude calculations are listed in Table III, as well as
the information already included in Table II. The format for
the additional information in Table III is as follows:
1. Station code.
2. Emergent (E) or impulsive (I), followed by phase type:
P, PG, P*, .PN, 5, SG, 5*, SN. If the phase is impulsive,
direction of first motion is also included if the
system polarity is known: compression (C) or dilatation
(D).
3. Station arrival time, hour-minute-second, UTC.
4. Epicentral distance, kilometers. For those events
having more than one epicenter reported, the first
epicenter listed is used for distances.
5. Peak-to-peak ground motion, in millimicrons, of the
maximum recorded amplitude of the vertical-component
signal (Rayleigh wave). All reported amplitudes have
been corrected for system response.
6. Period, in seconds, of the wave from which the ampli-
tude was measured.
7. Nuttli magnitude as computed from the amplitude,
period and distance.
SUSPECTED AND POORLY LOCATED EARTHQUAKES
In addition to the earthquakes listed in Table II, seven
events were detected which could not be definitely identified
as being earthquakes or not enough arrivalswere detected to
allow an acceptable computer solution. This class of events
is listed in Table IV, which has the same format as Table III.
92-560 0 - 77 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
U)
U)
a
U)
`0 o
c'J
`0
4)
.,-~
0' ~
0
4)
U)
U)
0
(0
N-
0
.110
North Latitude, degrees
~- 0 )
~- ~- ~-
0 0 0
~ L 0 0) U~
~- ~- ~* r() F()
Figure 1. Seismic stations operating during the period
July - September 1976.
PAGENO="0115"
111
North Latitude, degrees
0 0 0
~- ° °~
N) N)
Figure 2. Earthquake epicenters during the period
July - September 1976.
PAGENO="0116"
(0
(0
0
a
a
`0 o
c~J
`0
4J
c
4J
U)
a
0
(0
N-
N-
0
(0
112
North Latitude, degrees
) ~ r~) C'J
Figure 3. Earthquake epicenters during the period
October 1975 - September 1976.
PAGENO="0117"
113
OPERATOR
LIST OF
STA LATITUDE
ID DGMNSEC
OPERATING
JULY -
LONGITUDE
DGMNSEC
TABLE I
SEISMIC STATIONS BY STATE
SEPTEMBER 1976
ELEVATION
METERS
CANADA, STATIONS
USED FOR
LOCATIONS
IN THIS BULLETIN
HTV 491124. N
MNI 462212. N
MNQ 503148. N
MNT 453009. N
OTT 452338. N
682324. W
755812. W
684612. W
733723. W
754257. W
112
83
HAUTERIVE, QUE.
MANIWAKI, QUE.
MANICOUAGAN, QUE.
MONTREAL, QUE.
OTTAWA, ONT.
EPB
EPB
EPB
EPB
EPB
CONNECTICUT
APT 411857.5N
BCT 412936. N
BPT 411319.5N
ECT 415004.7N
HDM 412908.8N
TMT 414841. N
UCT 414954. N
720350.0W
732302. W
731432. W
732440.8W
723123.6W
724756. W
721502. W
3
69
83
342
24
290
149
AVERY PT., CT.
BROOKFIELD CENTER,
BRIDGEPORT, CT.
ELLSWORTH, CT.
HADDAM, CT.
TALCOTT MT., CT.
STORRS, CT.
UCT
CT.UCT
UCT
UCT
UCT
UCT
UCT
DELAWARE
NED 394215.2N
754229.5W
46
NEWARK, DE
DGS
MAINE
ACM 470454. N
CBM 465557. N
EMM 444421. N
MIM 451437. N
TRM 441534.9N
690124. W
680715. W
672922. W
690225. W
701518.3W
216
250
20
140
113
ALLAGASH, ME
CARIBOU, ME
EAST MACHIAS, ME
MILO, ME
TURNER, ME
WES
WES
WES
WES
WES
MASSACHUSETTS
FLR 414300.ON
GLO 423825. N
HRV 423023. N
WES 422304.90
WFM 423638. N
710717.5W
704338. W
713330. W
711919.5W
712926. W
52
15
180
60
88
FALL RIVER,MA
GLOUCESTER,MA
HARVARD,MA
WESTON,MA
WESTFORD,MA
WES
MIT
MIT
WES
MIT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
BNH 443526. N
DM11 430721. N
HNH 434219. N
ONH 431645. N
PNH 430539. N
WNH 435206. N
711523. W
705341.3W
721708. W
713020. W
720809. W
712359. W
472
24
180
280
659
220
BERLIN,NH
DURHAM,NH
HANOVER,NH
OAKHILL,CONCORD,NH
PITCHER MT. ,NH
WHITEFACE,NH
WES
MIT
MIT
MIT
MIT
MIT
PAGENO="0118"
114
TABLE I. CONT. PAGE 2 OF 3
NEW JERSEY
GPD 410103.6N 742739.0W 360 GREENPOND, NJ LDO
OGD 410515.ON 743545.0W -363 OGDENSBURG,NJ LDO
PNJ 4O5425.5N 740917.4W 31 PATERSON,NJ
PQN 410026.4N 750509.0W 229 PAHAQUARRY,NJ LDO
NEW YORK
ADN 435000.ON 760710.8W 137 ADAMS,NY LDO
ALF 421331.2N 774749.8W 671 ALFRED,NY LDO
ALX 441921.ON 755540.8W 122 ALEXANDER BAY,NY LDO
APH 435028.8N 742949.2W 564 AIRPORT HANGAR,BLUE
MTN. ,NY LDO
CLY 435104.8N 742656.4W 579 CRYSTAL LAKE, NY LDO
CTR 435227.ON 742736.0W 585 CASTLE ROCK,NY LDO
DNY 425010.8N 781007.8W 381 DERSAM,NY LDO
EGN 435134.7N 742854.6W 549 EAGLE'S NEST,NY LDO
ELM 425100.6N 783836.0W 216 ELMA,NY LDO
FOR 405147.ON 735308.0W 24 FORDHAM,NY LDO
HNY 424954.6N 753053.4W 500 HAMILTON,NY LDO
HMB 423916.2N 785109.0W 290 HAMBURG,NY LDO
MRH 425021.ON 781424.0W 448 MERCHANTS HILL, NY LDO
OCN 435305.4N 743145.6W 701 OVER CASTLE ROCK,NY LDO
PAL 410015.ON 735433.0W 91 PALISADES,NY LDO
PNY 445003.ON 733318.0W 177 PLATTSBURG,NY LDO
PTN 443421.ON 745858.2W 238 POTSDAM,NY LDO
TBR 41O830.ON 741320.0W 261 TABLEROCK,NY LDO
WWL 435016.2N 743236.0W 561 UTOWANA LAKE,NY LDO
WLI 441832.4N 760035.4W 90 WELLESLEY I. ,NY LDO
WND 422015.ON 740909.0W 602 WINDHAM,NY LDO
WNY 442327.6N 735134.2W 598 WILNINGTON,NY LDO
WPR 411516.8N 733508.4W 152 WARD POUND RIDGE,NY LDO
BLM* 411947. N 735718. W 134 BLUM,NY CON
CHR* 411229. N 741316. W 183 CALLS HOLLOW ROAD,NY CON
DBM* 411740. N 735830. W 27 DUNDERBURG MTN. ,NY CON
DPL* 411510. N 735439. W 67 DELLI PAOLI, NY CON
GOB* 411946. N 735519. W 150 GOBBELET,NY CON
GSC* 411558. N 740014. W 110 GIRL SCOUT CAMP,NY CON
IPS* 411602. N 735654. W CON
OSB* 412137. N 735526. W 212 OSBORN,NY CON
SNP* 411427. N 735816. W 30 STONEY POINT,NY CON
SPS* 411807. N 735326. W 168 ST. PETERS SCHOOL,NY CON
SRM* 411342. N 740050. W 165 SCHERMAN,NY CON
STL* 411119. N 740013. W 125 STILES,NY CON
WGL* 412132. N 735358. W 152 WEGEL,NY CON
PAGENO="0119"
115
TABLE I. CONT. PACE 3 OF 3
* CONSOLIDATED-EDISON, INDIAN POINT SEISNIC NETWORK, POLARITY UNKNOWN
* STATION CODES NOT ALL CLEARED THROUGH NEIC
PENNSYLVANIA
BVR 4042 N 8020 W BEAVER,PA PSU
ERI 4208 N 7959 W ERIE,PA PSU
MLV 395930. N 7622 W MILLERSVILLE,PA PSU
PHI 4007 N 7508 W ABINGTON,PA PSU
SCP 4O4742.ON 775154.0W 352 STATE COLLEGE,PA PSU
RHODE ISLAND
LAF 413403. N 713024. W 40 LAFAYETTE,RI UCT
VERMONT
ESJ 443112. N 730154. W ESSEX JUNCTION,VT LDO
MDV 435957. N 731052.2W 134 MIDDLEBURY,VT LDO
OPERATOR CODE
CON -CONSOLIDATED-EDISON, INDIAN POINT,NY
DGS -DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
EPB -EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH,DEPT. OF ENERGY, NINES AND RESOURCES, CANADA
LDO -LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
MIT -MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PSU -PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
UCT -UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
WES -WESTON OBSERVATORY-BOSTON COLLEGE
PAGENO="0120"
116
TABLE II
EPICENTER LIST
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
AND ADJACENT REGIONS
JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
SOURCE H-TINE(UTC) LATITUDE LONGITUDE RMS MAGNITUDE DEPTH
HR MN SEC DEG DEG KM
01 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 07 15 43.86N 74.48W MBN ~1
01 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 09 44 43.86N 74.48W MBN ~1
04 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 09 50 43.86N 74.48W MBN ~1
05 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 10 58 43.86N 74.48W MBN ~1
11 JUL ST.LAWRENCE VALLEY,QUEBEC
*WES 05 15 04.3 47.37N 70.26W O.47SEC MBN~2.4UCT OR
13 JUL VALLEYFIELD,QUEBEC INT.V
*LDO 03 51 14.0 45.18N 74.10W 0.17SEC MBN=2.9
*WES 03 51 14.0 45.29N 74.06W O.98SEC MBN3.OUCT OR
15 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 08 57 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
19 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LD0 07 37 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
20 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 05 56 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
21 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 20 58 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
23 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 09 31 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
25 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LD0 03 58 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
28 JUL 0FF COAST SOUTHWESTERN MAINE
*WES 02 04 34.8 43.16N 70.24W 0.9 SEC MBN=2.3UCT OR
*MIT 43.15N 70.32W OR
01 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LD0 03 58 43.86N 74.48W
MBN~1
PAGENO="0121"
TABLE II,CONT.
02 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 18 45 43.86N 74.48W
03 AUG ST.LAWRENCE VALLEY,QUEBEC
*WES 02 57 15.5 47.58N 70.06W
14 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 10 44 43.86N 74.48W
19 AUG RAQUETTE LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 15 47 53.6 43.89N 74.64W
20 AUG MOUNT PLEASANT,NEW YORK
*LDO 22 08 14.3 41.11N 73.75W
21 AUG RAQUETTE LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 14 00 12.5 43.89N 74.66W
12 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 19 15 43.86N 74.48W
16 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 08 34 43.86N 74.84W
16 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 13 37 43.86N 74.84W
18 SEP SOUTHEAST OF BLUE MOUNTAIN
*LDO 01 15 23.0 43.82N 74.20W
20 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 10 44 43.86N 74.48W
21 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 21 29 43.86N 74.48W
22 SEP INDIAN POINT.NEW YORK
*LDO 09 04 44.9 41.29N 73.95W
* SOURCE
DGS - DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
EPB - EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH,DEPT.OF ENERGY,MINES AND RESOURCES
LDO - LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIV.
MIT - MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PSU - PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
IJCT - UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
WES - WESTON OBSERVATORY - BOSTON COLLEGE
117
PAGE 2 OF 2
OR
MBN 1
0. 24SEC
MBN 1
0.00 SEC
O.15SEC MBN=2.5
0.3 SEC
MBN 1
MBN 1
NBN 1
LAKE,NEW YORK
O.21SEC MBN1.6
MBN 1
MBN~1
O.O4SEC MBN1.8
4
6
1.4
8
PAGENO="0122"
118
TABLE III
EARTHQUAKE DATA LIST
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
AND ADJACENT REGIONS
JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
SOURCE H--TIME (UTC) LATITUDE LONGITUDE
HR MN SEC DEG DEG
RMS MAGNITUDE DEPTH
KM
01 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, NEW YORK
*LD0 07 15 43.86N 74.48W
01 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, NEW YORK
*LD0 09 44 43.86N 74.48W
04 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, NEW YORK
*LDO 09 50 43.86N 74.48W
05 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE, NEW YORK
*LDO 10 58 43.86N 74.48W
MBN 1
MBN 1
MBN 1
MBN 1
11 JUL ST.
*WES 05 15
AGM EPG 05
AGM EPN 05
AGM ESG 05
CBM EPN 05
CBM EPG 05
CBM ESN 05
CBM ESG 05
BNH EPN 05
BNH ESN 05
EMM EPN 05
EMM ESN 05
UCT
TMT
ECT
HDM
BCT
LAWRENCE VALLEY,QUEBEC
04.3 47.37N 70.26W
15 20. 0 99KM
15 22. 0 99KM
15 32. 3 99KM
15 31. 2 169KM
15 33. 1 169KM
15 50. 1 169KM
15 52. 4 169KM
15 49. 5 318KM
16 22. 4 318KM
15 54. 1 363KM
16 32. 2 363KM
63 6KM
65 0KM
6 6 4KM
6 7 8KM
69 9KM
13 JUL VALLEYFIELD,QUEBEC INT.V
*LDO 03 51 14.0 45.18N 74.10W
*WES 03 51 14.0 45.29N 74.06W
MNT EPGD 03 51 22.3 52KM
MNT ESG 03 51 28.7 52KM
PNY EPGC 03 51 23.1 55KM
PTN EP D 03 51 29.1 97KM
OTT EP 03 51 34.0 129KM
OTT ES 03 51 49.4 129KM
CTR EP D 03 51 36.7 148KM
0CM EP C 03 51 36.9 148KM
MDV EP 03 51 37.0 150KM
0.17 SEC MBN2.9
0.98 SEC MBN=3.O UCT OR
0.47SEC MBN=2.4 UCT OR
5MU 0.4 SEC
6MU 0.5 SEC
4MU 0.4 SEC
5MU 0.4 SEC
6MU 0.4 SEC
MBN=2.33
MBN=2 .36
MBN=2 .36
MBN=2 .37
MBN=2 .49
PAGENO="0123"
119
TABLE III. C0NT.
EGN EP D 03 51 37.1 150KM
CLY EP D 03 51 37.2 150KM
APH EP D 03 51 37.4 152KM
UWL EP C 03 51 37.7 153KM
WLI EP D 03 51 41.7 180KM
MNI EP 03 51 44.5 197KM
ADN EP D 03 51 47.5 220KM
HNH EPN 03 51 48.1 226KM
HNH EPG 03 51 51.0 226KM
HNH ESM 03 52 12.2 226KM
BNH EPN 03 51 49.7 235KM
BNH EPG 03 51 52.1 235KM
BNH ESN 03 52 16.5 235KM
BNH ESG 03 52 19.7 235KM
ECT EPN 03 52 09.8 388KM
ECT EP* 03 52 13.4 388KM
TMT EPN 03 52 10.1 400KM
UCT 401KM
BCT EPN 03 52 12.1 426KM
BCT EP* 03 52 20.7 426KM
AGM EPG 03 52 25.6 437KM
ACM ESN 03 52 57.1 437KM
11DM EPN 03 52 13.2 441KM
11DM EP* 03 52 23.3 441KM
BPT 445KM
CBM EPN 03 52 20.7 494KM
EMM EPN 03 52 23.7 522KM
EMM ESM 03 53 16.2 522KM
EMM ESC 03 53 42.1 522KM
15 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LD0 08 57 43.86N 74.48W
19 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 07 37 43.86N 74.48W
20 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LD0 05 56 43.8611 74.48W
21 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 20 58 43.86N 74.48W
23 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 09 31 43.8611 74.48W
25 JUL BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 03 58 43.86N 74.48W
28 JUL OFF COAST SOUTHWESTERN MAINE
*WES 02 04 34.8 43.16N 70.24W
*MIT 43.15N 70.32W
DM11 EPG 02 04 42.6 53KM
DM11 ESG 02 04 49.6 53KM
GLO IPG 02 04 44.5 70KM
GLO ESG 02 04 53.0 70KM
PAGE 2 OF 5
95MU 0.5SEC MBM=3.23
48MU 0.4SEC MBM=3.O3
32MU O.6SEC MBM=2.72
MBN 1
MBM 1
MBM 1
MBN 1
MBN 1
MBM 1
0.9 SEC MBM=2.3UCT
OR
OR
PAGENO="0124"
120.
TABLF. III. CONT. PAGE 3OF 5
WFM IP 02 04 52.9 119KM
WFM ES 02 05 08.6 119KM
WNH EP 02 04 54.3 122KM
WNH ES 02 05 08.8 122KM
WES EP* 02 04 55.0 124KM
WES ES* 02 05 08.9 124KM
NRV EP 02 04 55.5 130KM
HRV ES 02 05 10.9 130KM
PNH IP 02 04 59.1 154KM
PNH ES 02 05 17.4 154KM
FLR ESN 02 05 22.9 176KM
HNH ESN 02 05 22.8 176KM
BNH EPN 02 05 01.5 179KM
BNH ESN 02 05 23.9 179KM
BNM ESG 02 05 25.2 179KM
UCT EPN 02 05 08.9 222KM 9MU 0.3SEC MBN=2.26
UCT ESN 02 05 33.6 222KM
UCT ESG 02 05 37.5 222KM
TNT 258KM 7MU 0.4SEC MBN=2.09
MDM EP* 02 05 16.6 265KM 6MU 0.3SEC MBN=2.19
MDM ESG 02 05 48.2 265KM
EMM EPN 02 05 16.7 282KM
EMM ES* 02 05 51.0 282KM
ECT EP* 02 05 22.3 299KM 5MU 0.1SEC MBN=2.50
ECT ESN 02 05 48.6 299KM
01 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 03 58 43.86N 74.48W MBN~ 1
02 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 18 45 43.86N 74.48W MBN
d3 AUG ST.LAWRENCE VALLEY,QUEBEC
*WES 02 57 15.5 47.58N 70.06W 0.24SEC OR
AGM EPG 02 57 31.3 96KM
ACM ESG 02 57 42.7 96KM
CBM EPN 02 57 41.7 163KM
CBM ESN 02 58 00.2 163KM
EMM EPN 02 58 07.0 373KM
EMM ESN 02 58 45.5 373KM
14 AUG BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 10 44 43.86N 74.48W MBN
19 AUG RAQUETTE LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 15 47 53.6 43.89N 74.64W 0.000SEC 4
APN EPGD 15 47 55.7 13KM
APH ESG 15 47 57.4 13KM
OCN EPGD 15 47 55.1 9KM
OCN ESG 15 47 56.3 9KM
EGN EPGD 15 47 55.7 13KM
EGN ESG 15 47 57.5 13KM
CTR EPG 15 47 56.0 15KM
CTR ESG 15 47 57.9 15KM
CLY EPGD 15 47 56.2 16KM
CLY ESG 15 47 58.3 16KM
PAGENO="0125"
121
TABLE III.CONT.
20 AUG MOUNT PLEASANT,NEW
*LDO 22 08 14.3 41.11N
PAL EPGD 22 08 17.6
PAL ESG 22 08 19.8
BLM ESG 22 08 22.7
WPR EPGD 22 08 17.9
WPR ESG 22 08 20.5
DPL EPG 22 08 18.0
DPL ESG 22 08 20.6
SNP EPG 22 08 18.4
SNP ESG 22 08 21.3
IPS EPG 22 08 18.4
IPS ESG 22 08 21.4
DBM EPG 22 08 19.0
GOB EPG 22 08 19.0
GSC EPG 22 08 19.0
GSC ESG 22 08 22.3
BCT IPGD 22 08 22.7
BCT ESG 22 08 28.8
BPT IPGD 22 08 21.7
BPT ESG 22 08 27.0
CHR EPG 22 08 19.1
CHR ESG 22 08 22.5
TBR EPGD 22 08 20.6
TBR ESG 22 08 25.3
ECT IPGC 22 08 27.9
ECT ESG 22 08 37.6
TNT EPG 22 08 32.2
PQN EPGC 22 08 32.1
PQN ESG 22 08 45.1
HDM IPGD 22 08 32.0
HDM ESG 22 08 44.3
UCT EP 22 08 37.7
PAGE 4 OF 5
12 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 19 15 43.86N 74.48W MBN~ 1
16 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 08 34 43.86N 74.48W
YORK
73.75W O.15SEC MBN~2.5 6
18KM
18KM
20KM
21KM
21KM
21KM
21KM
24KM
24KM
24KM
24KM
26KM
28KM
32KM
32KM
33KM
33KM
44KM
44KM
44KM
44KM
47KM
47KM
85KM
85KM
111KM 23MU 0.2 SEC MBN=2.5O
119KM
119KM
130KM 41MU 0.2 SEC MBN=2.83
13 0KM
149KM 25MU 0.2 SEC MBN=2.76
0.3 SEC 1.4
21 AUG
*LDO
0CM
OCN
APR
APR
EGN
EGN
CTR
CTR
CLY
C LY
14
EPGD
ESG
EPGD
ESG
EPGD
ESG
EPG
ESG
EPGD
ESG
RAQUETTE LAKE, NEW YORK
00 12.5 43.89N 74.66W
14 00 14.2 11KM
14 00 15.4 11KM
14 00 14.8 14KM
14 00 16.5 14KM
14 00 14.8 15KM
14 00 16.6 15KM
14 00 15.1 16KM
14 00 17.0 16KM
14 00 15.3 18KM
14 00 17.4 18KM
MBM 1
PAGENO="0126"
122
TABLE III.CONT. PAGE 5 OF 5
16 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 13 37 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
18 SEP SOUTHEAST OF BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 01 15 23.0 43.82N 74.20W O.21SEC MBN=1.6 0
CLY EPGD 01 15 26.2 20KM
CLY ESG 01 15 28.7 20KM
CTR EPGD 01 15 26.5 22KM
CTR ESG 01 15 29.1 22KM
EGN EPGD 01 15 26.7 23KM
EGN ESG 01 15 29.5 23KM
WHY ESG 01 15 42.9 69KM
MDV EPG 01 15 36.7 84KM
MDV ESG 01 15 46.8 84KM
20 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 10 44 43.86N 74.48W MBN~ 1
21 SEP BLUE MOUNTAIN LAKE,NEW YORK
*LDO 21 29 43.86N 74.48W MBN~1
22 SEP INDIAN POINT,NEW YORK
*LDO 09 04 44.9 41.29N 73.95W O.O4SEC MBN=1.8 8
DBM EPGC 09 04 46.3 2KM
DBM ESG 09 04 47.3 2KM
IPS IPGC 09 04 46.3 3KM
IPS ESC 09 04 47.2 3KM
BLM IPGC 09 04 46.5 4KM
BLM ESG 09 04 47.6 4KM
DPL IPGC 09 04 46.5 5KM
DPL ESG 09 04 47.6 5KM
SPS IPGC 09 04 46.5 5KM
SPS ESG 09 04 47.7 5KM
COB IPGC 09 04 46.5 5KM
GOB ESG 09 04 47.7 5KM
SNP IPGC 09 04 46.4 6KM
SNP ESG 09 04 47.6 6KM
OSB IPGC 09 04 46.9 8KM
OSB ESG 09 04 48.3 8KM
WGL EPG 09 04 46.9 9KM
WGL ESG 09 04 48.4 9KM
CHR IPGC 09 04 47.3 24KM
CHR ESG 09 04 49.0 24KM
TBR IPGD 09 04 49.5 28KM
WPR IPGD 09 04 50.1 31KM
WPR ESG 09 04 53.9 31KM
GPD IPGD 09 04 53.4 52KM
*SOURCE
DGS - DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
EPB - EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH, DEPT. OF ENERGY,MINES AND RESOURCES,CANADA
LDO - LAMONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
MIT - MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PSU - PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
UCT - UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
WES - WESTON OBSERVATORY - BOSTON COLLEGE
PAGENO="0127"
123
TABLE IV
SUSPECTED AND POORLY LOCATED EARTHQUAKES
NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
AND ADJACENT REGIONS
JULY - SEPTEMBER 1976
SOURCE H-TIME(UTC) LATITUDE LONGITUDE RMS MAGNITUDE DEPTH
HR MN SEC DEG DEC KM
12 JUL BAY OF FUNDY
*WES 22 52 43.1 44.89N 66.40W 2.42SEC OR
8MM EPG 22 53 00.6 88KM
EMM ESG 22 53 06.3 88KM
CBM EPN 22 53 18.5 264KM
CBM ESN 22 53 50.9 264KM
ACM ESN 22 54 01.6 318KM
16 JUL LAKE ONTARIO
*LDO 18 57 29.9 43.99N 77.86W 0.26SEC 0
ADN EPC 18 57 51.5 141KM
ADN ESC 18 58 08.3 141KM
WLI EP 18 57 53.4 152KM
WLI ES 18 58 11.1 152KM
02 AUG NEAR EASTPORT MAINE
*WES 05 14 47.5 44.85N 66.93W 0.OOSEC OR
EMM EPC 05 14 55.0 46KM
EMM ESG 05 15 00.5 46KM
CBM ESN 05 15 50.9 250KM
03 AUG NORTHERN NEW BRUNSWICK
*WES 00 44 39.5 46.87N 66.88W 1.465EC OR
CBM EPC 00 44 53.3 95KM
CBM EP* 00 44 54.6 95KM
CBM EPN 00 44 55.0 95KM
CBM ESC 00 45 07.3 95KM
CBM ESN 00 45 10.6 95KM
ACM EPN 00 45 04.7 165KM
ACM EP* 00 45 07.7 165KM
ACM ESC 00 45 26.8 165KM
EMM EPN 00 45 17.0 242KM
EMN EPG 00 45 21.1 242KM
EMM EEC 00 45 46.5 242KM
30 AUG ST.LAWRENCE RIVER VALLEY,QUEBEC
*WES 00 30 38.8 47.65N 69.77W O.19SEC OR
ACM EPG 00 30 52.5 85KM
ACM ESG 00 31 03.0 85KM
CBM EPN 00 31 02.9 148KM
CBM ESN 00 31 20.1 148KM
PAGENO="0128"
TABLE IV,CONT.
15 SEP ATTICA,NEW YORK
*LDO 08 32
DHN EPGD 08 32 31.5
DHN ESG 08 32 32.3
DNY EPGD 08 32 31.7
DNY ESG 08 32 32.6
124
PAGE 2 OF 2
16 SEP EDWARDS,NEW YORK
*LDO 06 51 07.1 44.38N
PTN EPG 06 51 12.4
PTN ESG 06 51 16.6
ALX EPG 06 51 15.3
ALX ESG 06 51 21.8
CTR EPGD 06 51 20.1
CTR ESG 06 51 31.7
75.29W O.33SEC MBN=1.7 6
32KM
32KM
51KM
51KM
87KM
87KM
DELAWARE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
EARTH PHYSICS BRANCH, DEPT.OF ENERGY,MINES AND RESOURCES,CANADA
LANONT-DOHERTY GEOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT
WESTON OBSERVATORY - BOSTON COLLEGE
* SOURCE
DOS -
EPB -
LDO -
MIT -
PSU -
UCT -
WES -
PAGENO="0129"
125
6.
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
No. Recipient
15 Dr. E.F. Chiburis
1 Mr. R.O. Ahner
1 File
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
No. Recipient
25 Dr. Jerry Harbour, Dir. of Reactor Safety Research,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
3 Ms. Mary Jinks, Chief, Central Main and Files,
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
5 Rev. James W. Skehan, S.J., Weston Observatory
5 Dr. N. Nafi Toksoz, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
5 Dr. Yash P. Aggarwal, Lamont-Doherty Geological
Observatory
5 Dr. Shelton S. Alexander, Pennsylvania State University
5 Dr. Ken Woodruff, Delaware Geological Survey
5 Dr. Peter Basham, Earth Physics Branch, Canada
1 Consolidated Edison of New York
15 Dr. Paul Pomeroy, New York State Geologist and Coordinator
NEUSSN.
92-560 0 - 77 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
126
I can furnish this for the subcommittee. This is one of the quarterly
bulletins published during the last couple of years by the Northeast
Seismic Network. The population density in the East, the older types of
construction in many cities, the relative number of nuclear powerplants
in operation or planned, and the lack of earthquake awareness on the
part of the citizenry, all make the Eastern and particularly the North-
eastern TJrnted States very susceptible to the ill effects of earthquakes.
It is for these reasons that sufficient emphasis and support be given
in the administration of the bill to research programs directed toward
understanding the seismotectonic processes in that section of the
country, as well as to the Western United States where the seismic
problem is obvious.
Just as the bill points out that it is not desirable to concentrate in one
place the expertise required to address the many facets of earthquake
hazard reduction, so too it is not desirable to concentrate in one place
the storage and distribution of physical data related to earthquakes.
Therefore consideration should be given to the concept of regional data
centers, which would encourage the involvement of and stimulate
those researchers most familiar with the seisinotectonic processes in
their own areas, and would provide more immediate access to those
data appropriate for the region than has been the case in the past
several years up to the present.
Advances in earthquake prediction require a prior knowledge of
fault locations and a sufficient amount and accuracy of earthquake
locations to determine which faults may be active, if not known from
* geologic observations.
In California and to a lesser degree in the entire Western United
States the larger fault zones have been mapped and there is a large
amount of information as to what faults are known or may be active.
This unfortunately is not the case in much of the Eastern United
States. May I offer as an illustration of the Boston region, a map
prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey? This is the kind of map that
will look familiar to the members of the subcommittee from
California.
This new map of the Boston region shows it to be at least as much
faulted as comparable areas in southern California and is indicative of
faulting in the region. We do not know which of these faults or other
structures may be responsible for the earthquakes that are recorded
in this region. To remedy this lack of fundamental seismotectornc
data we recommend that basic mapping of the geology be carried out
on a continuing basis.
But vast areas in New England a.nd much of the east coast is lacking
this important data base upon which to build an adequate earthquake
hazards reduction program. Limitations of funding in recent years
and other priorities than earthquake hazard reduction have limited
t.he amount of such basic mapping particularly in the eastern two
thirds of the United States.
Fortunately the use of aerial geophysical surveys and the use of
satellite images-Landsat--can help speed the process. The develop-
ment of such maps as the Boston Sheet proceeding along with the
acquisition of more precise locations of earthquake from improved
permanent and portable seismograph networks will enable the identi-
fication of active faults in the region.
PAGENO="0131"
127
The information on regional geology also is necessary for, and is
part of, the development of regional tectonic studies.. These studies
subdivide regions into areas of differing geologic histories and move-
thents. It is this information when fully integrated with the earth-
quake history of a region and the effects and intensity of the earth-
quakes that results in seismic zoning or microregionalization.
IRegional geologic and tectonic studies are critical to the program
in the eastern United States. We suggest that an expanded program
similar to that at Weston will assist in assessing needs and means for
earthquake hazards reduction in~the Northeastern United States. These
will include cooperative programs with university, private industry,
State, regional and Federal agencies to acquire the necessary infor-
mation.
Some of our staff, members of APGS, and other groups as well,
have played a role in developing building codes in Boston and as
input to the national building codes developed by the Association of
Engineering Geologists. These are cited for the reason that they are
examples of what various private sector and public sector agencies
can provide by way of input.
One of the problems of the past and present is that while there are
many very excellent. geoscientists on the east coast as well as elsewhere
in the country, they have been trained and specialized in fields that
only indirectly cont.ribute to the types of studies mentioned. There
is a shortage of people in Eastern United States with the proper back-
ground for the kinds of regional studies that are required. A program
such as that envisioned by H.R. 35 can only be successful if it ad-
dresses, at least in part, the question of training of geoscientists in
field geology and geophysics.
Concerning the level of funding, it appears to be sufficient, provided
that higher priority be given, at least initially, to physical studies and
to structural studies. In this way, as full an understanding as possible
of the various physical processes and their associated effects can be
obtained before bringing to full support levels those programs for
social, legal and economic research and for implementation.
We believe that the agency or agencies which administer the pro-
gram should be selected on the basis of proven capability of enlisting
the considerable expertise required by the program and available in
the several sectors of our society. We suggest that the programs be
carried out not only by Federal agencies but that State, regional, and
local agencies, universities, and private industry in all parts of the
Nation be given an expanded role based on competence.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Skehan.
Did Dr. Chiburis have anything he wanted to add?
Dr. CHIBtIRIS. No.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Dornan?
Mr. DORNAN. On the map of the Boston area, it looks as though
there are more faults than any given part of southern California
area. How similar or dissimilar are these faults to the ones in
California?
Dr. SKEHAN. The ones in the Boston area are, for the most part,
faults that we interpret as having been developed deep within the crust
PAGENO="0132"
128
of the Earth prior to erosion of a thickness of some several miles or
so of sediment.
We think the type of structure that is exposed here is fairly dis-
similar, at least in the characteristics of the rocks that are exposed
widely over the surface, to those in California. We believe that the
processes that are going on at some miles beneath the surface of
California are those that are producing features similar to those which
are now exposed at the surface of this eastern Massachusetts area and
rather widely over some of the older rock terrain of eastern North
America.
Mr. DORNAN. Congressman- Anderson in hi~ statement mentioned
the Cape Ann, Mass., earthquake of 1755. What type of a seismo-
graphic power did that earthquake have?
Dr. SKEHAX. There were no seismographs at that time. There are
verbal accounts only with respect to the 1755 earthquake. However,
there are studies that `have been going on rather extensively in con-
nection with the hearings concerned with Pilgrim 2, the Plymouth
nuclear power plant siting question and exhaustive studies have been
made of the Cape Ann region and the literature that is extant relating
to those.
The general conclusion is that the earthquake has to be interpreted
as probably in the range of intensity VIII or magnitude 6, or possibly
5. I might point out also that nearby in the St. Lawrence River region,
say 100 miles or so from northern Maine, there have occurred in the
1920's a couple of earthquakes in the range of 7 and 7.2 that are
certainly therefore in the range of the 1971 San Fernando quake.
The Grand Banks earthquake of 1929, I believe it was, was in the
same range of intensity, producing tidal waves in the Burin Peninsula
of Newfoundland a.nd smaller tidal waves in Maine.
* Mr. DORNAN. Where is Cape Ann?
Dr. SKEHAN. Just north of Boston. On this particular map it would
be located at this particular point [indicating].
Dr. SKEHAN. The best epicenter location that can be devised from
all the records we know to date would place that particular earth-
quake just offshore. If I might, that brings up a point with respect
to an interpretation of the cause of earthquakes that may be relevant
to the Charleston area and to the New England earthquake scene.
There is a growing body of evidence, although certainly not conclusive
at this time, to suggest that the cause of earthquakes in these regions
may possibly be- related to an unlocking of igneous plutons of greater
density from the country rock in which they are encased. Stresses
built up in the individual plutons may be released in the vicinity of
these individual plutons as earthquakes. These plutons are igneous
rock bodies that are essentially cylindrical masses of higher density
and therefore of contrasting properties to the bedrock in which they
are encased, the enclosing bedrock having had its stresses released
long ago. This is one possibility that I think it is worthy of -a great
deal more research to determine whet-her or not eart~hquakes can be
predicted not oniy as to location but also in terms of time.
Mr. DORNAN. Not coming from what is generally known as earth-
quake country, do you have the same stringent building standards as
we have in California? I was in Boston some years ago and one of
PAGENO="0133"
129
your largest glass insurance buildings was shedding the outside glass
the way that a fall tree should be shedding leaves.
I wondered what would happen under an earthquake situation with
a building like that.
1)r. SKEITAN. I am sure there would be a lot more windows lost
under such a situation. Certainly oscillations or vibrations of the kind
in the Cape Ann quake would cause tremendous damage. The facades
of these buildings, the ornaments attached to the buildings in that
case would produce significant damage and probably even a large
number of deaths.
Mr. DORNAN. Do you have surveys going, on now to assess the weak-
nesses of your older buildings? I recall in New York City a hotel just
collapsed like a deck of cards a few years ago. It was older and going
through a condemnation process so tragically it was just older, senior
citizens involved in the death toll. But certainly a building like that,
without an earthquake just collapsing from old age would go down
instantly in an earthquake situation.
Dr. SKEITAX. To my knowledge there is no program at all to look
at the problem of the integrity of different structures in most parts
of the East.
Mr. DORXAN. Again maybe in the context of civil defense prepared-
ness for the horror of a nuclear war, it might turn up a lack of safety
standards that could prevent a high death toll in a natural disaster.
Dr. SKEHAX. I might mention that there are areas that selectively
feel the effects of some of the local earthquakes in New England. For
instance, in the 1920's, there was a earthquake in the Canadian area,
the area that I mentioned before. For the most part the eastern part
of the United States is built on fairly dense rock providing a sound
building foundation.
There are other areas of filled in land which vibrate quite like a
bowl of jelly and the filled in portions of Boston felt the vibrations of
those larger earthquakes in the twenties rather severely and produced
quite a bit of panic on the part of people in those structures.
So there is a need for considering building codes selectively on the
type of foundation material which is involved as foundation material.
I think it might impose quite a hardship were uniform building codes
imposed without reference to the rocks on which the buildings sit.
Mr. BROWN. I want to thank you particularly for your testimony
as it relates to indicating that this is a national rather than a regional
problem. I think that emphasis needs to be made. And your emphasis
of the need for training of additional geoscientists which obviously is
implied with the initiation of any major new program in this area is
appreciated also.
I would like to ask this: You have commented on the utility of the
photographs which came out of the advances in the space photography
over the last 15 years. Other developments have occurred over that
period of time. I wondered if you could make a comment with regard
to the relevance of these scientific advances to the need for this legisla-
tion?
In other words, have we reached a period of scientific breakthrough
where a stronger program in this area can be justified from these
scientific advances?
PAGENO="0134"
130
Dr. SKEHAN. Perhaps Professor Chiburis could respond from his
viewpoint. I would say that there has been now almost a decade of
experience with some of the theoretical approaches to the geosciences,
namely tectonics.
It is one of the major ideas which is a unifying factor in the under-
standing of the Earth as a whole. So scientifically, I think that we are
at a very advantageous place where we have experience with a theory
that has a lot of promise as well as acknowledged deficiencies.
I think the data that can and will be brought forth from satellite
photography which when integrated with the growing amount of
seismic data in this kind of a program will go a long way to uhder-
standing the causes and mechanisms of earthquakes in relation to our
theoretical models.
Mr. BROWN. I ask this because we have had earthquakes for a long
time and the question arises : Why an earthquake program now? I want
to really relate this, if it is possible, to the new developments in the
scientific field.
Dr. SKEHAN. In the East we have had important earthquakes in the
past, but most people are unaware of this completely. We have had a
series of earthquakes over the past year that have been felt by several
thousand local residents. And yet 2 months later they had forgotten
all about it. The general public seems not even aware that individuals
had commented and responded to questionnaires as to the degree to
which they felt the earthquake. Your question, Congressman Brown,
may be answered best, I believe, by saying that the present time in his-
tory is the right time for such a program because we now have the basic
seismic instruments, a body of data that has been accumulating at an
ever accelerated rate, other powerful tools such as LandSat and other
imagery, and conceptual models for exploring and explaining the
causes of earthquakes. It is therefore an opportune time from so many
points of view for this program to yield the hoped-for results.
Perhaps I could add one comment with respect to the LandSat
imagery. There is so much information contained in the satellite
imagery that is on a scale which brings out features that Earth
scientists and others had never noted before. It is a very powerful tool,
among others, for looking at the various features of Earth and its
structure and increasing our potential for understanding the tectonics
of the globe.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. I thank both of you gentlemen
for your contributions. It has been very helpful to us. We appreciate
your stayin.g with us as long as you have.
We have one more witness and before I invite him to come forward,
I would like to note that our reporter has gone through 4 continuous
hours. Would you like a break, Ms. Reporter?
The REPORTER. I would love about 5 minutes.
Mr. BROWN. Fine. We will take a 5-minute break.
[Five minute recess.]
Mr. BROWN. The subcommittee will reconvene. We have one remain-
ing witness, Dr. Ralph Turner, who is professor of sociology at UCLA
and formerly Chairman of the Panel on Public Policy Implications
of Earthquake Predictions of the National Academy of Sciences.
PAGENO="0135"
131
He will contribute some of the social aspects of earthquake predic-
tions which has been referred to by other witnesses but not in the depth
that I am sure Dr. Turner will be able to provide us with.
We welcome you, Dr. Turner. We again apologize for keeping you
this long. As I explained to you, we hope this will expedite the process
of moving this bill along into legislation. You may proceed with your
statement. The full text will be included in the record.
[A biographical sketch and the prepared statement of Dr. Ralph
Turner follow:]
PAGENO="0136"
132
Ralph H. Turner Octobei, 1973
BRIEF RESUME
Present position:
Professor of Sociology, University of Cal~fox21ia, Los Angelee
Education:
University of Southern California, B.A., 19~+l, H.A., 1942;
University of Wisconsin, 1942-1+3;
University of Chicago, Ph.D., 1948.
Professional axperience:
Research Associate, American Council on Race Relations, 1947-48;
Instructor to Professor, University of California, Los Angeles,
19k8---;
Chairman, Sociology Department, UCLA, 1963-68;
Visiting Professor, University of Washington, summer, 1960;
Visiting Professor, University of Hawaii, summer, 1962;
Visiting. Scholar, Australian National University, Aug.-Nov., 1972.
Visiting Professor, University of Georgia, spring, .1975.
Fellowships:
S. S. H. C. Research Training Fellowship, 1947-1+8;
S. S. H. C. Faculty Research Fellowship, 1953-56;
Fulbright Research Fellowship, United Kingdom, 1956-57;
Guggenheim Fellowship, 1964-65.
Offices in Professional Organizations: .`
Pacific Sociological Association -- Secretary-treasurer, Vice president,
President (1956-57), Advisory council;
American Sociological Association -- Council, Exscutive Committee,
Chairman of Social Psychology~ Section (1960-61),
President (1968-69),
* Chairman of the Section on Theoretical Sociology (1973-7~);
* Society for the Study of Social Problems -- Council (1963..64);
Sociometry -- Editor (1962-6'+);
Behavioral Science Study Sec~ion, N.I.H.,(1961-66), Chairman (1963-6k);
Social Science Research Council - Director-at-Large (1965-66);
Foundations Fund for Research in Psychiatry -- Director (1970-73).
Nat'] -4cademy of Sciences--Chrnn. Panel on Public Policy Implications, of.
Books published: earthquake prediction (l9~k-~5).
Collective Behavior (with L. Killian), Prentice-Hall, 1957;
Second Edition, 1972;
The Social Context of Ambition, Chandler, 1961+;
Robert Park: On Social Control and Collective Behavior, Univeraity of
Chicago Press, 1967;
Famil~j~teraction, John Wiley, 1970.
PAGENO="0137"
133
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY, U.C.L.A., AND
FORMERLY CHAIRMAN, PANEL ON PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF EARTHQUAKE
PREDICTION, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. APRIL 20, 1977.
My con~ents will deal with the social, psychological, economic,
legal, and political aspects of reducing earthquake hazard, and with
research needed for policy development in these same areas. Planning
and research concerning the socioeconomic aspects of earthquakes are
less advanced than they are for disasters such as floods, tornadoes
and hurricanes. In 1975, the National Academy of Sciences Panel on
Public Public Policy Implications of Earthquake Prediction published
a comprehensive but preliminary examination of problems that may arise
in attempting to use earthquake prediction capability for public bene-
fit. These problems were outlined in testimony before the U.S. Senate,
Ninety-fourth Congress, in connection with Senate Bill 1174, and re-
ported in the Congressional Record for February 19, 1976. There is no
need to repeat that discussion here. In addressing the current pro-
posed legislation I shall draw from this Report, from experience with the
N. A. S. Earthquake Study Team to the People~ Republic of China in
1976, and recent research including a current investigation of com-
munity response to earthquake threat in Southern California.
I sin especially gratified that provision for physical and engi-
neering studies is adequately balanced in the proposed legislation
(H.R. 35) by attention to socioeconomic problems of implementation and
relevant social, legal, and economic research.
PAGENO="0138"
134
2.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
The achievements of physical science and engineering are like the raw
materials of production. Without them we are condemned to a primitive
existence. But unless they are transformed through the miracle of mod-
ern production methods and distribution, we remain like the peasant far-
mer for whom petroleum bubbling up in his land only reduces his agricul-
tural yield. Earthquake prediction may be one of the great scientific
achievements of this century for saving human lives. The technical know-
ledge for building quake-resistant structure *and locating them to mini-
mize risk has already served us well. But making constructive use of
earthquake prediction and earthquake technology is as difficult and com-
plex as transforming iron ore and other raw materials into modem auto-
mobiles.
Two circumstances illustrate the problem. In Southern California
about fourteen months ago, an uplift of the San Andreas Fault was pub-
licly identified asprobably signalling a forthcoming earthquake of de-
structive~magnitude. But efforts to prepare the community for the com-
ing earthquake are still sporadic, and research indicates that many peo-
ple still doubt that anything can be done-ahead-of-time to minimize loss
of life, injury, and property damage. There may be a deep psychological
cal resistance to admitting and dealing with risk that must be under-
stood and overcome if we are to reap the benefits of prediction. But
certainly we can hardly expect community support for a program of hazard
reduction until people see convincing evidence that something can be done
and are presented with a credible program. Also in Southern California
PAGENO="0139"
135
3.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
there are e ~ masonry
buildings constructed before current regulations were enacted in
1933. These buildings are almost certain to collapse and kill or in-
jure most of their occupants in the event of a severe earthquake in
the vicinity. Although earthquake engineers can identify the unsafe
structures and design relatively safe new buildings, little headway
is made in speeding up the evacuation and demolition of the unsafe
structures. For understandable reasons, even, a proposal to post warn-
ings outside of unsafe structures to alert potential users has been
blocked by aroused public resistance. Similarly, residents living
below the Little Rock Dam have taken legal action to prevent the low-
ering of water levels in the dam when that step was mandated in order
to reduce hazard in the case of an earthquake on the nearby San Andreas
Fault. So far no alan has been devised in either situation that deals
realistically with the legitimate bases for resistance to implementing
our technical knowledge to save lives. No plan yet proposes to amortize
the costs to property owners, to minimize disruption of business and
neighborhood life, or to recognize the racial implicatinns of dispos-
sessing people who are concentrated in minority neighborhoods. Water
users have not been systematically consulted in the course of planning
for dam safety in case of earthquake.
Legislation such as that proposed should help to promote the more
effective planning needed in the many situations such as we have just
outlined in which scientific knowledge and technical skills remain
PAGENO="0140"
1 136
4.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
unused for lack of attention to socioeconomic considerations.
While physical and engineering research into earthquakes has been
Federally funded, planning for the socioeconomic aspects of eafthquake
disaster has often been left to the states and local governments. But the
Federal initiative proposed in this legislation is essential for several
reasons. First, compared with other familiar natural disasters, destruc-
tive earthquakes occur quite infrequently in ,the United States. With in-
tervals from decades to centuries between destructive quakes in various
locations, there Is little opportunity to accumulate experience on a lo-
cal basis. Where there are annual tornado or flood seasons, agencies and
their personnel can build up a fund of experience that keeps them prepar-
ed to respond effectively to the disaster event and to the warning. Lo-
cally, earthquake hazard reduction must be the responsibility of agencies
that are preoccupied on a day-to-day basis with problems that recur at
shorter intervals. Lessons learned from one destructive earthquake can
often not be applied or tested in the same locality for decades, when
agency personnel have been succeeded by a new and ine~erienced generation
of workers. Likewise, the folk wisdom that guides public response to many
natural disasters and warnings cannot accumulate unless event follows upon
event while the memory of each experience remains fresh. Consequently, the
need is especially acute in case of earthquakes for assembling and assess-
ing earthquake experience on a national basis, and as far as possible in-
ternationally. In this way, a thorough analysis of socioeconomic features
PAGENO="0141"
137
5.
STATEMENT OF. RALPH H. TURNER
of one destructive earthquake, or of the.prediction and warning of such
a quake, can be reflected in planning for the next such event wherever it
occurs, and the revised plans tested and revised again within a brief span
of years.
Second, the muiriplicity of jurisdictions affected by an earthquake
poses a variety of problems. It is neither practicable nor cost-efficient
to duplicate planning efforts in all potenti'ally affected counties and
cities. Because of the concentration of earthquake hazard and resources,
a single state such as California can provide much of the planning assis-
tance required by its local jurisdictions. But few other states can al-
locate the resources needed to guide local planning. Nor is there any ad-
vantage to duplicating research and planning activities in the thirty-nine
states in which earthquake hazard is known to exist.
And third, the prospect of an earthquake prediction capability poses
an entirely new set of problems for all the affected states. Local govern-
ments in earthquake-prone communities have understandably developed disas-
ter plans on the assumption that earthquakes will come.without warning.
Civil defense and sheriffs and police departments take the lead in emer- -
gency planning and emergency response. Their emergency roles are designed
to make good use of their skill and experience in restoring order and re-
sponding to crises instantaneously. But hazard reduction in advance of a
predicted earthquake is remote from their usual realm of activity. Plan-
ning departments and Building and Safety Departments, on the other hand,
PAGENO="0142"
138
6.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
are accustomed and equipped to deal principally with -~ ~l~ri,t hazard
control in the long range. Local jurisdi~tions are not now organized or
a~c~ i~pIe~..~t
equipped to makeAthe critical decisions that could substantially reduce
the hazard of earthquakes based on a few days, weeks, or months of advance
notice. Prototype planning based on a thorough understanding of how local
governments work under normal and emergency conditions, what are the rele-
vant legal opportunities and constraints, and what steps promise effective
hazard reduction is essential. Planning to deal with earthquake warning
will require cooperative efforts among the potentially affected jurisdictions
in which the personnel and financial resources of Federal government can be
crucial.
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the fate of communities
in which earthquakes have been predicted may be largely determined by decis-
ions made outside of the local and state jurisdictions. Recently completed
research by Eugene Haas and Dennis Mileti has shown that business and finan-
cial leaders are concerned but uncertain over what course to follow in case
of earthquake prediction. Their decisions may follow in domino fashion upon
assumptions about what other units in business or government are doing. The
result may be to precipitate a disabling recession in the affected cnmmuni-
ties, or to establish a firm base for mobilizing the community to deal with
the earthquake threat. But crucial decisions will likely be made by officials
of lending institutions and insurance companies located thousands of miles frcm
the affected area. The immediate costs of short-term hazard reducing nroerams
will almost- certainly be beyond the canabilitv of the local community- and will
PAGENO="0143"
139
7.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
reauire financine from mublic and orivate sources outside of the area.
Local jurisdictions can only hope to plan for the advent of earthquake
prediction in collaboration with the Federal government. What the local
community can realistically do will depend upon what support the Federal
Government is prepared to offer on very short notice. At the very least,
~ to finance the reinforcement of ex-
isting structures and the provision of temporary housing for vulnerable
populations must be part of the planning. Since time will be of the es-
sence, it is essential that agreement has been reached in advance between
Federal and local jurisdictions over the resources available and the con-
ditions under which they will be supplied.
Some of the objectives for legislation deserve special notice. The
need for "education of the public, including State and local officials,"
can be related to observed problems in the wake of the current earthquake
threat in Southern California. By December, 1976, Southern Californians
had been exposed to serious discussion of the significance of the Nojave
uplift, a carefully and hypothetical prediction issued by a seis-
mologist at the California Institute of TeChnology, and a specific pre-
diction for Decembei 20 issued by an amateur who was unknown to the sci-
entific community. A small pilot survey in early December shwowed that
more people were aware of tie amateur's prediction than of the two scien-
tific announcements. But the amateur was commonly identified as a "Cal
Tech professor." The lessening of this kind of confusion in the future
will require informed and coordinated planning between public officials
PAGENO="0144"
140
8.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
and the news media, based on understanding of the nature and reasons for
the confusion.
Experience in the Chinese People's Republic suggests the advantages
of going beyond educating the public to actively involving them in the
earthquake preparation and prediction effort. In the successfully pre-
dicted Haicheng earthquake of February 1975, public cooperation with evacu-
ation orders was impressive. It seems likely Shat cooperation was facili-
tated by the organization of amateur groups as part of the earthquake pre-
diction effort. These groups gave many more people a stake in the effort,
and served to advertize the prediction effort concretely to neighbors and
friends. The U. S. Weather Bureau has long had a successful program for
using amateur tornado spotters. While it is unclear at present whether
amateur observations can actually contribute to the prediction of earth-
quakes, exploratory programs should be encouraged.
Because of limited experience with destructive quakes, communities
are not sensitized concerning the exceptional vulnerability of certain
population segments to earthquake risks. There is a common impression
that death and destruction strike randomly in an earthquake, and everyone
is in much the same potential danger before a quake. Public programs sel-
dom take account of the fact that Substantial reduction of risk can be
achieved by many people for relatively little cost or inconvenience, while
for some the costs are insuperable. Because death and injury will be dis-
~ among the latter, only limited hazard reduction
PAGENO="0145"
141
9.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
can be achieved through usual regulation-and--policing methods. Iden-
tifying these vulnerable populations' and familiarizing the larger com-
munity with their problems are essential parts of earthquake planning.
Two critical factors in planning for earthquake hazard reduction are
law and insurance. Our legal system generally works to make us go slowly
in situations where policies may have unanticipated effects on community
and individual welfare. Because of the need to respond quickly to earth-
quake prediction and earthquake disaster, it is essential to clarify the
legal contingencies as far as possible in advance of need. Preliminary
exploration of legal aspects reveals a great deal of work to be done be-
fore the law becomes more an asset than a liability in earthquake planning.
The role of insurance as a tool of hazard reduction is still unclear.
Insurance can be used to spread disaster costs over time and over the pop-
ulation and, through differential rates, to create incentives for bringing
structures up to acceptable standards of earthquake safety. In the Haas-
Mileti research the availability of uncancellable insurat~ce was often men-
tioned by business leaders as a critical factor in their decisions in re-
sponding to earthquake prediction. On the other hand, even Federally sub-
sidized disaster insurance has attracted little public interest, and the
prospect of massive and concentrated losses raises questions concerning the
PAGENO="0146"
142
10.
STATEMENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
practicability of this approach. There is much planning yet to be
done concerning the role of insurance. Because of the nature of the
underwriting problems and the organization of insurance companies,
this planning can only be done on a national rather than local basis.
For the most part, earthquake rehabilitation policies have been
mere transplantations from the more abundant experience with such disas-
ters as floods and tornadoes. Only a small beginning has been made in
studying the social and psychological effects of United States earth-
quakes on the basis of the San Fernando quake of 1971. Today, there is
debate over the need for psychological services -- especially for children
-- after a quake. It is still unclear whether the 1971 earthquake exper-
ience has made the affected area more receptive to hazard reduction plans
or more resistant to facing the prospect of a future quake. We have not
yet learned how to apportion post-earthquake assistance to insure that it
goes to the needy, and so as to insure that the rebuilt community will be an
I~n
improved placeAto live and work.
I have already touched on the possibly disruptive economic adjust-
ments that may accompany earthquake predictions. Although we cannot yet
say with certainty what these adjustments will be in case of an actual
earthquake prediction, it is clear that disruption can be minimized only
with collaborative advance planning between government and business, with
the active support of the Federal government.
PAGENO="0147"
143
11.
STATE2~ENT OF RALPH H. TURNER
In concluding my testimony I want to. reiterate the main conclusion;
that effective earthquake hazard reduction requires careful and sophis-
ticated socioeconomic planning, that can only be executed effectively
with full cooperation and initiative from the Federal government.
PAGENO="0148"
V 144
STATEMENT OF DR. RALPH TURNER, PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY,
UCLA, AND FORMER CHAIRMAN, PANEL ON THE PUBLIC POLICY
IMPLICATIONS OF EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION, NATIONAL ACAD-
EMY OF SCIENCES
Dr. TURNER. Thank you, Congressman Brown.
My coniments will deal with the social, psychological, economic,
legal, and political aspects of reducing earthquake hazards and with
research needed for policy development in these same areas.
In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Public Policy
Implications of Earthquake Predictions published a comprehensive
but preliminary examination of problems that may arise in attempting
to use earthquake prediction capability for public benefit.
These problems were outlined in testimony before the U.S. Senate,
94th Congress, in connection with Senate bill 1174, and reported in the
Congressional Record for February 19, 1976. There is no need to
repeat that discussion here. In addressing the current proposed
legislation I shall draw from this report, from experience with the
NAS earthquake study team to the People's Republic of China in 1976,
and recent earthquake research including a current investigation of
community response to earthquake threat in southern California.
I am especially gratified that provision for physical and engineer-
ing studies is adequately balanced in the proposed legislation by atten-
tion to socioeconomic problems of implementation and relevant social,
legal, and economic research.
The achievements of physical science and engineering are like the
raw materials of production. Without them we are condemned to a
primitive existence. But unless they are transformed through the
miracle of modern production methods and distribution, we remain
like the peasant farmer for whom petroleum bubbling up in his land
only reduces his agricultural yield. Earthquake prediction may be
one of the great scientific achievements of this century for saving
human lives. The technical knowledge for building earthquake resist-
ant structures and locating them to minimize risks has already served
us well.
But making constructive use of earthquake prediction and earth-
quake technology is as difficult and complex as transforming iron ore
and other raw materials into modern automobiles.
Two circumstances illustrate the problem. In southern California
about 14 months ago, an uplift of the San Andreas Fault was publicly
identified as probably signaling a forthcoming earthquake of a de-
structive magnitude. But efforts to prepare the community for the
coming earthquake are still sporadic, and research indicates that many
people still doubt that anything can be done ahead of time to mini-
mize loss of life, injury, and property damage. There may be a
psychological resistance to admitting and dealing with risk that must
be understood and overcome if we are to reap the benefits of prediction.
But certainly we can hardly expect community support for a program
of hazard reduction until people see convincing evidence that some-
thing can be done and are presented with a credible program. Also in
southern California. there are known to be thousands of unreinforced
masonry buildings constructed before current regulations were enacted
PAGENO="0149"
145
in 1933. These buildings are almost certain to collapse and kill or
injure most of their occupants in the event of a severe earthquake in
the vicinity. Although earthquake engineers can identify the unsafe
structures and design relatively safe new buildings, little headway is
made in speeding up the evacuation and demoiition of the unsafe
structures. For understandable reasons even a proposal to post warn-
ings outside of unsafe structures to alert potential users has been
blocked by aroused public resistance.
While physical and engineering research into earthquakes has been
federally funded, planning for the socioeconomic aspects of earth-
quake disaster has often been left to the States and local governments.
But. the Federal initiative proposed in this legislation is essential for
several reasons. First, compared with other familiar natural disasters,
destructive earthquakes occur quite infrequently in the United States.
With intervals from decades to centuries between destructive earth-
quakes in various locations there is little opportunity to accumulate
experience on a local basis. Locally earthquake hazard reduction must
be the responsibility of agencies that are preoccupied on a day-to-day
basis with problems that recur at shorter intervals. Lessons learned
from one destructive earthquake can often not be applied or tested in
the same locality for decades, when agency personnel have been suc-
ceeded by a new and inexperienced generation of workers. Likewise,
the folk wisdom that guides public response to many natural disasters
and warnings cannot accumulate unless event follows upon event
while the memory of each experience remains fresh.
Consequently the need is especially acute in case of earthquakes for
assembling and assessing earthquake experience on a national basis,
and as far as possible internationally. In this way a thorough analysis
of socioeconomic features of one destructive earthquake, or of the
prediction and warning of such a quake, can be reflected in planning
for the next such event whenever it occurs, and the revised plans
tested and revised again within a brief span of years.
Consequently the need is especially acute in case of earthquakes for
poses a variety of problems. It is neither practicable nor cost efficient
to duplicate planning efforts in all potentially affected counties and
cities, or even in the 39 States in which earthquake hazard is khown
to exist.
And third, the prospect of an earthquake prediction capability poses
an entirely new set of problems for all the affected States. Local gov-
ernments in earthquake prone communities have understandably de-
veloped disaster plans on the assumption that earthquakes will come
without warning. Civil defense and sheriffs and police departments
take the lead in emergency planning and emergency response. Their
emergency roles are designed to make good use of their skill and ex-
perience in restoring order and responding to crises instantaneously.
But hazard reduction in advance of a predicted earthquake is remote
from their usual realm of activity. Planning departments and building
and safety departments, on the other hand, are accustomed and
equipped to deal principally with hazard control in the long range.
Prototype planning based on a thorough understanding of how local
government works under normal and emergency conditions, what are
the relevant legal opportunities and constraints, and what steps prom-
se effective hazard reduction is essential. Planning to deal with earth-
PAGENO="0150"
146
quake warning will require cooperative efforts among the potentially
affected jurisdictions. The personnel and financial resources of Fed-
eral Government can be crucial in this planning.
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the fate of communi-
ties in which earthquakes have been predicted may be largely deter-
mined by decisions made outside of the local and state jurisdictions.
Recently completed research by Eugene Haas and Denis Mileti has
shown that business and financial leaders are concerned but uncertain
over what course to follow in case of earthquake prediction. Their
decisions may follow in domino fashion upon assumptions about what
other units in business or Government are doing. The result may be to
precipitate a disabling recession in the affected communities or to
establish a firm base for mobilizing the community to deal with the
earthquake threat. But crucial decisions will likely be made by officials
of lending institutions and insurance companies located thousands of
miles from the affected area. The immediate costs of short-term hazard
reducing programs will almost certainly be beyond the capability of the
local community and will require financing from public and private
sources outside of the area.
In this connection I concur heartily with Councilman Cunning-
ham's recommendation for low-interest loans. Since time will be of the
essence it is essential that agreement has been reached in advance be-
tween Federal and local jurisdictions over the resources available and
the conditions under which they will be supplied.
Some of the objectives for legislation deserve special notice. The
need for education of the public, including State and local officials,
can be related to observed problems in the wake of the current earth-
quake threat in southern California.
A small pilot survey in early December showed that more people
were aware of the amateur's prediction than of the two scientific an-
nouncements. But the amateur was commonly identified as a Cal
Tech professor. The lessening of this kind of confusion in the future
will require informed and coordinated planning between public offi-
cials and the news media, based on understanding of the nature and
reasons for the confusion.
Because of the limited experience with destructive quakes, commu-
nities are not sensitized concerning the exceptional vulnerability of
certain population segments to earthquake risks. I am very gratified
that there is a paragraph dealing with this in the legislation because
it is so frequently overlooked. I personally wrote and insisted on the
inclusion of such a chapter in our National Academy of Sciences re-
port. There is a common impression that death and destruction strike
randomly in an earthquake, and everyone is in much the same po-
tential danger before a quake. Public programs seldom take account
of the fact that substantial reduct.ion of risk can he achieved by many
people for relativel~ little cost or inconvenience, while for some the
costs are insuperable. Because death and injury will be disnroportion-
ately concentrated among the latter, only limited hazard reduction
can be achieved through usual regulation and nolicing methods.
Identifying these vulnerable populations and familiarizing the larger
community with their problems are essential parts of earthquake
planning.
PAGENO="0151"
147
Two critical factors in planning for earthquake hazard reduction
are law and insurance. Our legal system generally works to make us
go slowly in situations where policies may have unanticipated effects
on community and individual welfare. Because of the need to respond
quickly to earthquake prediction and earthquake disaster, it is es-
sential to clarify the legal contingencies as far as possible in advance
of need.
The role of insurance as a tool of hazard reduction is still unclear.
Insurance can be used to spread disaster costs over time and over the
population and through differential rates to create incentives for
bringing structures up to acceptable standards of earthquake safety.
In the Haas-Mileti research the availability of uncancelable insurance
was often mentioned by business leaders as a critical factor in their
decisions to respond to earthquake predictions. On the other hand,
even federally subsidized disaster insurance has attracted little public
interest, and the prospect of massive and concentrated losses raises
questions concerning the practicality of this approach.
I have already touched on the possibly disruptive economic adjust-
ments that may accompany earthquake predictions. Although we can-
not yet say with certainty that these adjustments will be in case of
an actual earthquake prediction, it is clear that disruption can be
minimized only with collaborative advance planning between gov-
ernment and business, with the active support of the Federal Govern-
ment.
In concluding my testimony I want to reiterate the main conclusion:
that effective earthquake hazard reduction requires careful and
sophisticated socioeconomic planning, that can only be executed
effectiv~ly with full cooperation and initiative from the Federal
Government.
Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Dr. Turner, for your testimony.
I think you have helped fill out the record in an extremely valuable
way. You have emphasized some of the kinds of policy considerations
which we don't always get sufficient attention about.
I assure you that will be very helpful to us.
Dr. Turner, I have no questions with your testimony and recogniz-
ing the time that we have imposed on you in remaining here this
morning, I think it would be desirable if we did not take up any more
of your time. We may want to ask you some questions in writing, if
we may. I hope that you will be able to help us out.
Dr. TtTRNER. I would be very happy to help in any way we can.
Mr. BROWN. I thank you for being here and making this contribu-
tion to the committee record.
With that the subcommittee will be adjourned until the call of the
Chair.
IWhereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to
(all of the Chair.]
PAGENO="0152"
148
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING UNIVERsITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
N.M. NEWMARK - URBANA, ILLINOIS 61801
1211 Civil Engineering Building
15 April 1977
Mr. Thomas R. Kramer
Science Consultant
Committee on Science and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives
Suite 2321 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Kramer:
Thank you for your letter of 14 April containing the copy
of H.R. 35. I am sending you my comments herewith.
The best statement of my views is contained in a paper
entitled "The Future of Earthquake Engineering," dated 17 September
1976, and presented at the Inaugural Symposium of the John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford University. A copy of
this paper is enclosed. You may find pages 14 to 18 of most
importance to the issues addressed by the bill.
With regard to specific comments on H.R. 35, I think it
expresses quite well the report of the committee of which I chaired,
appointed by H. Guyford Stever last year, to advise on the funding
for earthquake prediction and earthquake hazard mitigation. I
would suggest some minor changes, however.
On page 2, line 7, I believe that "design" should be
referred to as well as "construction,' so as to make that line
read as follows: improved design and construction methods and
practices, prediction
At the bottom of page 2 and the top of page 3, I believe
that within ten years we may not be able to predict as accurately
as implied in the bill the "time, place, magnitude, and physical
effects of earthquakes " The statement that I made in my
report indicated that "We shall be able to make reasonably accurate
predictions of the place and probable magnitude and somewhat less
accurate predictions of the time of occurrence, of earthquake motions
within the next ten to twenty-five years."
As far as general co-rments are concerned, I believe that
somewhere there ought to be included in the bill the matter of
"engineering judgment and experience." It would be wrong to give the
PAGENO="0153"
149
-2-
impression that all of the functions of earthquake engineers in design
of structures can be supplanted by computer analyses based on research.
There are economical considerations of major importance. Complete
safety of all structures against all possibilities of earthquakes is
definitely not warranted economically, and should not be promised.
I trust that these comments will be helpful to you.
Sincerely yours,
-~
N. N. Newmark,
Professor of Civil Engineering
& in Center for Advanced Study, Emeritus
dp
enclosure
92-560 0 - 77 - 10
PAGENO="0154"
150
17 September 1976
THE FUTURE OF EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
Nathan H. Newmark
Professor of Civil Engineering, Emeritus
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
OPENING REMARKS
It is a pleasure to speak to you on the occasion of the Inaugural
Symposium of the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. These fine
facilities and the people associated with its operation will make an
important contribution to one of the most difficult problems of our planet,
the calamities caused by natural, or in some cases man-made, earth motions
and the phenomena resulting from these motions.
This is an area to which the generous donor of these facilities,
John Blume, has devoted much of his life and his abundant energies. It
has been my pleasure to be associated with John for at least twenty years,
both professionally and socially, and from time to time I have worked
closely with him - never without argument but seldom with violence.
The eminent speakers that you have heard today have discussed
a number of the aspects of earthquake engineering, and some have taken you
for a brief look at the future developments of their particular topic. I
have the task of enlarging upon the theme of this symposium, the future
of earthquake engineering, and I have set certain ground rules that I
should like to discuss briefly.
First, I have considered that there are two points in time
that we shall consider as the `futur&: (1) the short range, or what we
PAGENO="0155"
151
might expect in the next decade; and (2) the longer range, or what we
might expect in the next quarter century. I have not considered it possible
to take any real long range view into the future; the crystal ball rapidly
becomes too cloudy.
The second ground rule is my definition of earthquake engineering.
I have considered this as a very broad topic involving not only the design
and proportioning of *structures, but also the definition of ground motions,
the possibility of earthquake prediction, the possible reduction of
future hazards from seismic events, and even the utilization of the
results of research efforts.
Fortunately I have unique qualifications for this task. Not
of my own volition, I have had the honor for the past several months of
being the chairman of the "Advisory Group on Earthquake Prediction and
Hazard Mitigation" to Dr. H. Guyford Stever, the Science Advisor to
President Gerald Ford. This Advisory Group is made up of twenty-two of the
outstanding seismologists, geophysicists, geologists, earthquake engineers,
architects, building code officials, sociologists, and the like, working
closely with and assisted ably by outstanding scientists and engineers
in the Nation,al Scier~ce Foundation and the United States Geological Survey.
I have drawn freely on my experiences with that Advisory Group, and I have
taken the liberty of using with some modifications parts of our report
which is now in its final stages of preparation.
PAGENO="0156"
152
THROUGH A GLASS - DARKLY
The problems and pitfalls of prophecy are many and difficult;
how does one infer what the future holds? An obvious answer would seem
to be: "by extrapolating from the experience of the past and the
practices of the present." This involves the implicit assumption that
science or engineering travels in a predictable path much as a straight
line is determined by two points or a smooth curve by several points through
which the curve may pass and then is extended beyond the end point.
However, this is not the way that things go, particularly not in scientific
matters, nor in areas that are sharply dependent on interpretation of
observations, especially during the course of acquisition of data. Research,
and particularly fundamental research, is based on the development of
hypotheses that may differ radically from preconceived notions or previous
concepts and ideas. When these hypotheses agree substantially better
than previous concepts with observations and facts, or when newly discovered
facts or augmented observations enable a better hypothesis to be built,
a step-function change occurs, and the straight line or curve takes an
abrupt departure from its previous trend. Hence one should not expect
that the next ten years or the next twenty-five years will be built on
the firm foundation of the past and the present; these well may be unstable
bases on which to build the future.
With this warning clearly in mind, let us light our lanterns
and step bravely forth.
PAGENO="0157"
153
-If-
WHAT IS EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING?
The aim of the broad concept of earthquakeei~gineering that
I described earlier is to save lives, reduce injuries, reduce damage,
and mitigate social and economic disruption in the event of earthquakes
and earthquake induced phenomena, and to find means of doing so at a
cost reasonable enough that society can afford the necessary actions.
To accomplish this objective we need interactions among the
various components of the technical and political community. The problems
are not all technical but there are major technical problems, to be sure.
For example, ground shaking is influenced by many factors, and no
generally acceptable procedure has been developed for evaluating and
estimating the relevant parameters. In consequence, land use zoning
cannot be rationally based yet on seismic risk, except in a very limited
way.
Similarly, precursors to earthquake motions have been widely
observed, but their characteristics are not sufficiently well known,
their correlation with subsequent earthquakes have not yet been adequately
established, and instruments are not yet deployed in sufficient numbers to
permit reliable earthquake predictions.
Again, structural engineering and structural design are old
and established fields of learning, yet, buildings designed in accordance
with recent building codes have suffered damage and in some cases even
collapse in earthquakes, and we cannot yet say that we can design to resist
PAGENO="0158"
154
-5-
earthquakes without paying the severe economic penalty of the extreme
conservatism that we find necessary in the case of special structures such
as nuclear power plants. -~
Regardless of our limited understanding of earthquake mitigation
methods, investments are being made, structures are being built, land
is being developed, earthquake motion precursors are being observed, and
interpretations based on our current inadequate understanding are
being made.
However, because of the fact that the public in general, and
responsible public officials, are rapidly becoming aware of the problems
of earthquake hazard and the necessity for hazard mitigation, I feel
confident that within the next ten years there will be substantially
increased funds available for those areas of research and study that need
to be developed in order to attain the goal of the earthquake engineer
and his brother scientists in the areas of geotechnology. These involve
studies in five areas, all supported by a broadly based program of funda-
mental studies in earthquake motions and earthquake related phenomena.
These five areas include the following:
(1) Earthquake prediction - involving the development of the
capability to predict the time, place, magnitude, and effects of earthquakes.
(2) Earthquake modification and control - involving the develop-
ment of techniques to allow the control or alteration of seismic phenomena,
whether natural or man-made.
PAGENO="0159"
155
-6-
(3) Hazard assessment - involving the development of assessing
seismic risk and evaluating the possibilities of earthquake motions so that
appropriate construction and land use plans can be implemented.
(k) Design improvement - involving the development of improved,
economically feasible, design and construction methods for building
earthquake resistant structures, dams, nuclear reactors, pipelines,
communication facilities, etc.; and for upgrading existing structures.
(5) Utilization - involving an understanding of the factors
that influence use of earthquake mitigation methods, and including social
and behavioral response.
Before we take a more direct look at each of these topics, it
may be worthwhile considering a general overall view as to what we might
expect in each of these areas. The limited goals that we might reach in
the short or longer range future are described on the basis that there
will be substantially increased funding for research in all of these
aspects of earthquake engineering and geotechnical studies, including the
fundamental studies that are necessary to support all of them.
It seems likely that we shall be able to make reasonably
accurate predictions of the place and probable magnitude, and somewhat
less accurate predictions of the time of occurrence, of earthquake motions
within the next ten to twenty-five years. On the otler hand, it does not
seem likely that, even within the next twenty-five years, we will have
made substantial developments in earthquake modification and control unless
PAGENO="0160"
156
-7-
a major scientific breakthrough occurs. Nevertheless, we can probably
count on developing a better knowledge of hazard assessment within the
next ten to twenty-five years, that may not be completely reliable but
will be sufficiently valid so that useful and effective decisions can be
made regarding land use plans, at least in some specific areas of the
country and the world.
Regarding improvement in design, it is my belief that we have
available now much of the basic information that is needed to have
assurance of design capabilities of specific structures to resist earthquake
motions. However, our procedures must perforce be overly expensive unless
further research effort is spent in reducing the uncertainties and in
developing less costly methods of assured accuracy and effectiveness. In
other words, if one is willing to pay an excessive cost, I am confident that
we can now design for almost any contingency. We cannot afford to do so
except for a few limited cases of extremely important structures. We must
continue to be over conservative until we have developed more rational and
appropriate methods, and until those methods have been reduced in complexity
to the extent that engineers and archi tects in general can apply them
properly. If the proper emphasis is put on this topic, great progress can
be made within the next ten years. Without such emphasis, it may take a
quarter of a century.
I should like it clearly understood, however, that these methods
may not necessarily involve what purports to be more accurate computer
programs. A computer program is no more accurate than the assumptions on
which it is based, and our difficulties lie not with the mathematical
PAGENO="0161"
157
-8-
techniques or thenurnerical analyses, but with the validity of the
assumptions on which the analyses are based.
In the area of utilization of earthquake mitigation methods, the
problem is more difficult because it involves education of the public
and the body politic, especially at the local level, to insure the proper
response to warnings, proper appreciation of the necessity of improved
building codes, and proper restrictions on land use planning.
FUNDAMENTAL STUDIES
To establish a scientific basis rather than to depend on a
wholly empirical approach to the understanding of destructive earthquake
ground motion requires a greatly increased knowledge of the physical
processes leading to and constituting an earthquake, under conditions that
exist in the upper crust, lower crust and upper mantle of the earth.
Theoretical models of the earthquake process must be developed. Both
pre-earthquake phenomena and the ground motion caused by the earthquake
are tightly linked with the faulting process itself. We do not yet know
what physical properties are the most critical, or the nature of the
instability that causes an earthquake. The failure criteria and the role
of stick-slip and pre-seismic, or co-seismic creep must be understood in
order to calculate fault propagation and stress or motion propagation.
The surficial and sub-surface properties and the tectonic setting affect
the amount of energy released and the characteristics of the generated
motion.
PAGENO="0162"
158
-9-
The new plate tectonic theory envisions the earth's surface as
comprised of a discrete number of large plates moving in relationship
to each other. This concept has allowed us to explain the distribution
of the bulk of the world's earthquakes and their seismic radiation patterns.
We need a more detailed knowledge of how stress is accumulated, distributed
and released along the boundaries of these moving plates. To date, basic
studies of worldwide earthquakes have been the primary tool in outlining
the plates, in determining their relative motions, in outlining the
downgoing slabs, and in defining seismic gaps. Such studies are broad,
interdisciplinary and conducted on a worldwide basis, on land and at sea.
They provide essential basic data.
But current knowledge of plate motions does not adequately
explain the occurrence of large and destructive intraplate earthquakes
(i.e. New Madrid, Boston, and Charleston). These earthquakes may have
quite different causes than those along the San Andreas fault system
and may well prove to be the most difficult to forecast. Measurements
of intraplate stresses and measurement of intraplate strains, on a plate-
wide and world-wide basis are required, together with more local studies
on the relationship of seismicity to geologic structure in known seismic
regions. Studies of plate motions, their causes and consequences, are at
the heart of understanding earthquake origins.
Seismic and other geophysical observatories and networks provide
the essential data for all studies in seismology, including earthquake
hazard reduction. The systematic location and cataloging of earthquakes
on a global basis is central to these studies.
PAGENO="0163"
159
-10-
EARTHQUAKE PREDICTION
In February 1975 a major earthquake (magnitude 7.3) destroyed
the town of Haicheng in the Peoples Republic of China and caused extensive
damage to industrial plants. Chinese earthquake specialists actually
predicted this earthquake. The population was removed from hazardous
buildings and only a few were killed even though a million people live
in the area. It is reported that the Chinese successfully predicted
earthquakes in May 1976 (Yunnan Province) and August 1976 (Szechwan
Province), and endangered people were warned to evacuate hazardous
structures. However, the Chinese did not predict accurately what may be
one of the worst earthquakes in this century, in the Tangshan-Tientsin
region of north China, on July 27, 1976. In 1976 other disastrous
earthquakes struck Guatemala, Italy, Western New Guinea, Bali and Mindanao
in the Philippine Islands. This will be recorded as one of the worst
yeais in this century for deaths due to earthquakes.
In the Los Angeles area, Geological Survey scientists reported
an uplift of the earth's crust along a section of the San Andreas Fault
that has been relatively quiet since the great earthquake of 1857. This
uplift is not necessarily an earthquake precursor, but it is cause for concern.
The growing prospects for earthquake prediction, based in part
on the still tentative experience of the Chinese, Japanese, and the Soviets
suggest that in coming decades we may have a capability to predict earth-
quakes in the United States. The achievement of prediction will depend
largely on the capability and capacity of our scientists and engineers
PAGENO="0164"
160
-11-
to observe and interpret precursory effects. It should be noted, however,
that local communities and State governments need to make changes in their
land use and building codes to reduce earthquake vulnerability if the goal
of a significant capability to predict the location, time and magnitude
of earthquakes is to result in reduction in property damage and life loss.
EARTHQUAKE MODIFICATION AND CONTROL
There are over 20 cases around the world where the filling of
large reservoirs appears to have triggered or induced earthquakes. The
triggered earthquakes range from microearthquakes recorded only instru-
mentally to earthquakes as large as magnitude 6.5. The largest earthquake
thought to be so induced, near the Koyna Dam in India, December 10, 1967,
resulted in 177 killed, 2,300 injured and extensive damage. While few
large reservoirs are known to have triggered earthquakes, there is
currently no accepted procedure to determine in advance of construction
whether filling a reservoir will trigger an earthquake. Nor is there a
procedure defined to allow operation of a reservoir (raising and lowering
the head of water behind the dam) without danger of triggering earthquakes.
Experience with inadvertently triggered earthquakes associated
with the deep waste disposal well near Denver, Colorado, and in a recently
completed earthquake-control experiment in an oilfield near Rangely,
Colorado, shows that, under certain conditions, man can influence the
occurrence of earthquakes. It was shown by Terzaghi many years ago that
PAGENO="0165"
161
an increase in the pore pressure of fluids results in a decrease in shear
strength in the rock or soil, which could in turn allow the release of
tectonic strain at a fault zone. This release can cause an earthquake
even when it is not intentional. The experiences at Denver and Rangely
confirm this concept. It is reasonable to expect that techniques can be
developed that can greatly reduce, if not eliminate, the problem of the
inadvertent triggering of earthquakes. Further, it is possible that
this hypothesis might lead in certain areas to a technique for modifying
natural earthquakes. To do so successfully may well be a very long range
possibility.
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Earthquake hazard assessment involves the delineation and
description of potential effects from seismically induced processes at
or near the ground surface. Estimates of how strongly and how often the
ground will shake are basic to building codes and engineering design.
Knowledge of areas susceptible to strong shaking, ground failure, surface
faulting, or inundation by tsunamis or dam failure is necessary for land-
use planning in earthquake susceptible regions. Appraisals of probable
damage patterns can guide both pre- and post-disaster planning. The
accurate assessment of earthquake hazards also is a key element in effective
action to take advantage of an earthquake prediction capability.
Some techniques for mapping and evaluating earthquake geologic
hazards are relatively well developed. Within certain constraints, faults
PAGENO="0166"
162
-13-
capable of rupturing the ground surface can be recognized and mapped.
Techniques also exist for identifying slopes susceptible to landsliding.
The processes of soil liquefaction and differential settlement are under-
stood in general terms, if not in detail. Rough techniques for predicting
tectonic surface distortions and level changes, critical for the prediction
of the post-earthquake operability of canals and pipelines, also exist.
The most pervasive and important hazard--ground shaking--can now
be estimated only within broad limits. The strength and character of
ground shaking at a site depend on the geologic conditions there, as well
as on the distance and characteristics of the source. Not all of the
mechanisms and details of this dependence are clear.
Most of these techniques for hazard assessment require
additional development, but most may be applied region by region at present
to varying degrees. They require substantial field investigation and the
gathering of significant regional geologic data. To predict areas susceptible
to liquefaction, for example, requires substantial information about
subsurface soil and ground water conditions. Efforts to obtain the required
data and apply these techniques have begun only at a low level.
Methodology for estimating earthquake damage and loss, including
methods for estimating damage patterns, is developing. Adequate progress
in this area will take at least twenty years, but a good start is possible
within the decade.
PAGENO="0167"
163
-1k-
DESIGN IMPROVEMENT
Earthcuake resistant design encompasses various disciplines,
including especially geotechnical, structural, mechanical and electrical
engineering, and architecture. It is concerned with the design and
development of physical systems to withstand earthquakes.
An earthquake may cause damage to a structure by ground shaking,
fault slip, subsidence, or landslides. Fundamental to the understanding
of these phenomena is accurate knowledge of the ground movement. There
are two approaches to this information: first, placing instruments to
measure how the ground responds to earthquakes; and second, developing
analytic models that consider source mechanism, propagation path
properties, and soil or rock conditions. Such models may delineate site
spectra; or maximum acceleration, veloci ty, displacement, and duration;
or time histories of motion.
A structure can be damaged either by the failure of the soil
or rock that supports it or by the shaking transmitted to it by the
surrounding soil. When soils are strongly shaken they may amplify the
displacement imparted to the supported structure or may fail through a
variety of mechanisms, including settlement of cohesionless soils, bearing
capacity failure, embankment failure, and soil liquefaction.
Structural integrity depends upon the complementary activities
of design and construction. The basic problem in design is to synthesize
the structural configuration (size, shape, materials and interrelation of
load bearing and nonload bearing elements) with methods of fabrication so
that the structure is able safely and economically to withstand earthquake
induced motions.
PAGENO="0168"
164
-15-
Analysis, which forms part of the basis for design, involves
modelling of the hypothetical structure, and calculation of limits for
the stresses and displacements produced by the motions. Accuracy in the
analytical process may be illusory; accuracy in the physical properties and
assumptions is essential for efficient and economical design, and reliabil-
ity in the design factor of safety. Design and analysis processes are
complicated because: (1) even simple structures are exceedingly complex
dynamic systems; (2) the nature of earthquake occurrences and input
motions is probabilistic; and (3) the construction process leads to a
structure that cannot be precisely described or modelled. Design and
analysis must be carried out for all parts of the structure, structural
and non-structural, and must consider action of the structure well
beyond the linear elastic range, up to the point of collapse. Of special
importance are assessing and improving the earthquake resistance of structures
already built, but having possible inadequate resistance.
Research is required to define the relative motion of nearby
points on the ground surface and at varying depths. Such relative motions
may influence the design of extended structures such as dams, multi-span
bridges, or long buildings and underground facilities as well as
inter-connected systems such as pipelines, aqueducts, and transmission
lines.
Research is required to determine the potential merit or hazard
involved in selecting foundation designs, elevations, and embedments for
various site conditions. Closely related to the study of ground motion
and structural response is the study of the interaction of supporting
soils with the structure.
PAGENO="0169"
165
-16-
Basic principles of planning dictate that systems should not
be located where soil failure (liquefaction or landsliding) is likely
to occur. Many times, however, systems such as wharfs, bridge approaches,
and highways must be located at sites where the potential for soil
failure is severe. Methods for controlling soil failure or alleviating
the consequences must be developed.
Building codes, which provide the most effective check against -
building damage or collapse in an earthquake, vary greatly in their
incorporation of seismic safety provisions and in practice. However, many
aspects of earthquake-resistant design cannot be covered effectively in
building codes. These aspects must include the responsibility of the
architect and engineer. A code is of value only as long as it is followed,
enforced, and maintained. Construction practices also play a critical
role. The success of the Field Act in California in reducing damage to
schools during earthquakes demonstrates the efficacy of a comprehensive
program of building regulation, design review, construction inspection,
and maintenance.
UTILIZATION OF RESEARCH
Up to this point I have concentrated on the development of
science and engineering capabilities to mitigate the effects of earthquakes.
Now I want to discuss briefly the social, economic, legal, and political
factors which sometimes act as a deterrent to the adoption o.f technological
findings.
92-560 0 - 77 - 11
PAGENO="0170"
166
-17-
Possible mitigation measures that could reduce earthquake
effects are advance preparation, land use, building codes and standards,
insurance and relief incentives, and information and education. While
each of these is being pursued in varying degrees and with widely divergent
effectiveness, there is little research that has been performed or is
currently underway to develop more effective and efficient adoption and
implementation of mitigation measures.
Changes in building codes and land-use regulations, and the
issuance of earthquake predictions and warnings can have serious
ramifications for the social, economic, legal and political aspects
of American life. Whether a research finding has a positive or negative
effect in mitigating earthquake hazards, or is ignored altogether, could
depend very much on the method for communication and utilization of the
results of the research. The use of any research product is highly
unlikely unless it is made adaptable to fulfill a recognizable need in
an appropriate form.
Public reaction to the issuance of an earthquake prediction
is very difficult to anticipate. It is clear that public information
programs, preparedness planning, and governmental coordination must go
hand in hand with prediction. The potential positive benefits of predictions
are clear in the saving of lives and reduction of damage. But potential
negative effects of predictions are also present.
The operation of a community during and after an earthquake
depends upon how well the utility and public service facilities function
PAGENO="0171"
167
-18-
as a system with elements located at many sites. The failure of an element
can cause the total system to malfunction or be inoperative. Thus the
design of system elements must consider the seismic performance characteristics
required of the total system, not just the individual elements. Both physi-
cally connected (e.g. water distribution), and nonconnected (e.g. hospitals,
clinics and laboratories) systems must be considered. The design of systems
with appropriate seismic resistive characteristics is intimately related
to local and regional planning. Such planning must consider both the
direct impact of ground displacement and ground shaking as well as
the indirect impacts.
Those of us who have a hand in the development of technological
improvement in earthquake engineering have also a responsibility to
assist in the education of the public to make appropriate use of the
findings in order that our efforts will not have been in vain.
PAGENO="0172"
168
COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
WASH!NGTON. D.C. 2~54$
CED7-417 ~PR 14 1977
B-126965
The honorable Olin E. Teacue, Chairman
Committee on Scicnce and Technology
House of Remresentatives
Dear Hr. Chairman:
Pursuant to your recuest of March 9, 1977, for our
views and recoomendaticns on H.P. 1457 and H.P. 2392,
95th Concress, cited as the Earthquake Hazards Reduction
Act, ~t:d H.P. 4193, 95th Conuress ,cited as the Earth-
quake Hazards Peducticn Act of 1977, we are providing
the following information.
Congressm~n Pay Tnornton, Chairman of your Subcc:.mittee
on Science, Poreorch, and Technology, advised us by letter
dated ~.~rcn 17, 1977, that the Succomoittea anned to hold
hearings in cud-April on H.P. 35, cited as tne Earthc~a~e
Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, and also asked that we pro-
vido him witu any pertinent information developed during
our current wor:< on earthcuako hazards which may me helcful
to the Suocomotttoe during its hearings. Therefore, a copy
of this letter is also being sent to Chair:iar. Thornton.
The above-mentioned bills, including H.P. 35, would
institute, tnrourh mum~ic and orivate efforts, a coordinated
and cocmrehensi a national program of earthquake hazards
reduction. Toe bills roulde for develomment of eartc~aae
prediction techoic~iss, early warning systems, and cccrdina:ed
emergency premaredoess clams. Tnev also orovida for devaloc-
ing eartnq~ake resistant dosogn anį construction metocds,
finding ways of controlling or altering earthcuakes, coor-
dinating infcroat:on sooct eartocuake hazards with lar.d use
decisions, and educating the puolic about earthquake r irks.
Generally, certinent orcuisions of the mills cover
matters wnicn ucre d:scussed in o~r Secteomer 11, 1972,
report to the Congress entitled "~eed for a ~ational Earth-
quake Researcn Program' (copy enclosed) . Our prior find ings
PAGENO="0173"
169
CED7-417
B- 12 6 9 65
and information on corrective actions taken by Federal
agencies are suomarized beiow. Also, we have identified
provisions of the bills which we believe warrant the
attention of iour Co littee and/or the Subcommittee on
Science, Research, and Tecunology.
PRIOR G~O FINDINGS
Our Semtemoer 11, 1972, remort discussed the need for
a national program in earthcoake research to acnieve maximum
benefit from Federal funds for earthooske research. The
report pointed out that under a national ~rogr an goals and
priorities snould be estaclished, acencv resmonsimilities
should he clearly defined, and coordination anono the asencies
conducting earthciaae researcu should me inDrovod. The report
noted that fragmentation of Federal resconsioility and the
lock of national goals made it extremely difficult for the
Federal aaencies summortinc eartncuake research to launch a
coord mated attoc.< on the ~am ion's earthquake problem.
Further, tho cornmlexmties of eartncuake research required
continuous comurenensive Dlann mug and an assessment of
research activities at the Federal level.
The Office of Monagement and Budnet (0MB) is responsible
for insur mg tnat onency progr ems are coord~natcd and that
the funds appropriatsd by tue Congress are spent in the most
economical manner with the least duplication an~ overlapping.
We therefore recommended that 0MB
--establish goals and priorities for a national earth-
quake research prosrem; -
--establish criteria by which to judge the effectiveness
of the program;
--define and reassign, if apDromriate, the responsi-
bilities of Federal agencies irivolved in earthquake
research;
--establish a permanent coordinating groom, indecendent
of the agencies involved, to provide guidance and
assistance in conducting the national earthquake
research program; and
--monitor agency earthquake research activities to
insure the coordination of these activities and the
most effective use of availeole resources.
PAGENO="0174"
170
CED7-417
B-126965
0MB, in response, gen~ral1v agreed with our reco~mendations
and stated that the President's 1973 budget provided for a
substant~a11v excanded earthcuake research ~rocram. 0MB said
that several actions were being considered for developing a
detailed plan for an exmanded research Progran, estaclisning
criteria for evaluating tne effectiveness of programs in
achieving tneir omJective, defining acencv resmonsibilities
for carrying out earthocake research programs, and monitoring
earthcuake research activjtoes to helm insure the most effect-
ive use of resources. 0MB stated, however, that it was not
feasible or desiramle to have a group independent of the
agencies involved to direct Lne Federal proaram. 0MB said
it might he more destramle to estamlish a croum independent
of the acencies invmlved to evaluate the effectiveness of
agencies' efforts to provide advtce to the Executive Office
of the Presodent on national coals, locrovements in coordina-
tion efforts, or improvements in aaencv program management.
In December 1972, o~:s advised the Department of Commerce
of its concern over the need to clar tfy earthcua~e research
objectives, estamlish clear resmmnsib~litjes for acnievina
those objectoves, and eliminate undesiramle dumlication of
effort. In this regard, 0MB recuested that the Damartment
of Commerce jointly prenare resorts with toe Desartoent of
the Interior and too Mational Science Foundation concerni
their roles in earthccake resc-arch. Such Joint reports,
however, wore not srosared mecause the Demartment of Commerce,
in January J973, decided because of budget reduction for fis-
cal year 1973 to termonate its strona-motion instrumentation
program and its earthcuake prediction research.
In March 1977, 0MB officials told us that a complete
turnover of staff since 1972 and a lack of adecuate documenta-
tion prevented tnem from determining what smecofic actions, ii
any, 0MB had ta~en to implement our recommendations. Tney add-
ed, however, that 0MB had not issued arv formal directives or
0MB Circulars to toe Federal acencies on Fderal earthquake
hazard reductoon efforts in general.
We discussed these matters witn officials of several
Federal agencies involved in earthcuake-related activities.
These offocia.s said they had not received from 0MB any
specific docectives or guidance pursuant to the recommendatoons
made in our 1972 report.
OBSERVATIOMS ON PEMDIMG LEOISrJ~TI0N
and t~.e sc:n:iiic c.~:.n::: c.kmressed ~ncreasong concern
PAGENO="0175"
171
CED7-417
B-l26965
over the earthcuake hazards in the United States. They
pointed to the need for a concerted effort by the Federal
Government to help insure that earthoua~e risk areas of the
country are prepared to effectively respond to such disasters.
In this res:cct, P.R. 35, H.R. 1457, H.P. 2392, and H.P. 4190
provide for tue estsnljshnent of a needed, coordinated earth-
auake hazard reduction procram to help reduce the loss of
life, property destruction, and economic and social disrup-
tion from future ear tnnua~es. The mills cenerallv provide
for (1) establishing toe Federal Governments role in an
effective eartoguake hazards reduction procras, (2) defining
and assigning agency res~onsibilitjes, and (3) estamlishing
a lead agency to coordinate the program. Because 0MB has
not acted on similar recommendations included in our Se~tem-
ber 1972 report aimed at a coordinated research program,
we concur mat these provisions should be included in
legislation by the Congress.
Sections 5(c) of P.R. 1457 and H.R. 2392 list nine
Federal agencies which should be involved in the earthcuake
hazard reduction Program. Sections 5(b)(4) of H.P. 35 and
H.P. 4190 list 12 agencies which should be included in the
program. None of the bills include all agencies involved
in earthquuke-related activities, however (for example, the
Deportment of Transportation) . Fe believe that the appro-
priate zections of those bills should be revised to include
language tnat would insure that the pertinent activities
of all Federal agencies are included in developing the
pr og rem.
Section 5 of each bill provides for the establishment
of the ear thonake hazard reduction program, but does riot
require that (1) goals, Priorities, tine frames, and target
dates be established for implementing the program and (2)
criteria be established for judging the effectiveness of
Federal agency efforts. To help insure that Federal efforts
are effective in accomplishing the oojectives of the proposed
legislation, these requirements should beincluded in the
bills.
Sections 6(d) of P.R. 1457 and P.R. 2392, and sections
5(b)(3) of P.R. 35 and P.R. 4190 contain no prevision for
payment of salaries or per diem for members of the National
Advisory Committee on Earthcuake Hazard Reduction, even
though some nemmers would not be Federal employees. Fe
suggest that the following or similar language be included
in the bills:
PAGENO="0176"
172
CED7-417
B-126965
"Each mother of the Committee who is not a
Federal employee shall be reimbursed for necessary
travel excanses (or in the alternative, mileage
for use of his privately ovme~ vehicle and a per
diem in lieu of subsistence not to exceed the
rates prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 5702, 5704), and other
necessary expenses incurrec~ by him in the perform-
ance of ~utaes vested in the Committee, without
regard to the provisions oi subchapter 1, chapter
57 of title 5 of the United States Code, the
Standard i:e~ Government Travel Regulations, or
5 U.S.C. 5731.
Since ly yours,
~ Comptroller General
of the United States
Enclosure
PAGENO="0177"
173
WRITTEN REMARKS FOR CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE
CONCERNING THE
"EARTHQUAKE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 197 7"-HR 35
by
Carl L. Monismith
Chairman, Department of Civil Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
The purpose of these remarks is to strongly support House
Bill 35 and urge its expeditious passage. Specifically my
comments are directed to support of the engineering research
and education aspects of the Bill.
Urgcnt need for recognition and reduction of earthquake
hazards to the works of may has been graphically demonstrated
by the continuing sequence of earthquake-produced disasters in
many parts of the world. The recent tragic event in Rumania is
only the latest in the current sequence which includes Guatemala,
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 prac-
tices 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 apart-
ment 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 re-
marks 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
earthquakes 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 gemerally
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 cam be achieved.
PAGENO="0178"
174
-2-
Although many government agencies participate in earthquake
engineering 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. Meaningful contributions from these institutions
have been and will continue to be associated with two areas namely:
(1) developing better understanding of earthquake ground
notions which are the essential source of the problem;
(2) developing improved understanding of the behavior of
structures of all types which are subjected to the
earthquake notions.
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, itis important to emphasize that the acquisition of these
records alone does not provide the solution to the problem of de-
signing structures providing an adequate degree of seismic safety.
The records must be analyzed, the factors influencing the charac-
teristics of the ground motions must be determined, and finally
methods must be developed for utilizing the characteristics of
past records to predict the nature of ground motions from earth-
quakes 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 earthquake. In addition, relationships must be de-
veloped between the probability of damage to various kinds of
structures and the intensity of ground shaking. 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 prodnced
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 of any anticipated earthquake
occup~ence, By this means critical structures can be designed
tQ ~ep)~in ~unctional, 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 otherwise well-designed structures
leading to failure or collapse, or the complete covering of de-
veloped areas with landslide debris - all phenomena observed in
earthquak~during the past 12 years.
PAGENO="0179"
175
-3-
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 calcu-
lating 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 are 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 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 earth-
quake behavior of structures. Studies of this type must continue.
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 earth-
quake 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 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.
Of special importance in the earthquake engineering field is
the need to ensure the seismic safety of such critical structures
as nuclear power plants, dams, and high rise buildings, the
failure of which could lead to the loss of many hundreds and
possibly thousands of lives. It was only by good fortune, for
PAGENO="0180"
176
-4-
example, that the earthquake of February 9, 1971 in San Fer-
nando, California did not lead to the greatest natural disaster
in the history of the United States. The major slide in the
upstream slope of the Lower San Fernando Dan resulting from this
earthquake left only a five foot wedge of soil separating the
water in the reservoir from thousands of hones and people located
downstream from the dam. If the earthquake had occurred at some
other time when the reservoir level was five or ten feet higher
(as it was, for example, on February 9, 1970) the reservoir water
would have overtopped the remaining part of the dam and erosion
night easily have led to a total loss of water from the reservoir.
The recent failure of Teton Dam in Idaho serves as a dramatic
reminder of the hazards associated with the failure of dams to
fulfill their function of safely impounding water. The possibility
of dam failures adjacent to urban areas constitutes one of the
greatest hazards resulting from earthquakes and requires the de-
velopment of both reliable and economical design procedures to
ensure that such incidents cannot and do not occur.
It should be emphasized that the earthquake engineering side
of earthquake disaster mitigation is not limited to the develop-
ment 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.
Without 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.
In general, to achieve the desired objectives of mitigat-
ing 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 significant
role in these educational research efforts. Reference has
PAGENO="0181"
177
-5-
already been made to the Earthquake Engineering Research Center
at the University of California. Faculty and student research
in this center has contributed to the knowledge required to
improve our design capabilities while the educational 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 other 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 necessary
people to work in the field. These efforts have received sub-
stantial 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 re-
search engineers. Thus I urge that this Bill be expeditiously
passed by the Congress.
PAGENO="0182"
178
`CAUFORNIABLISINESS PROPERTIES ASSOCIATION/2311 VESTELSEGU~dDO BOULEVAPO/ROWllHORNE. CALIFORN!A90250/OFNCEI213) 757-9151
Si~ 2 5 ~
April 21, 1977
The Honorable Ray Thornton
To: Members, Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation
Committee
Members, House, Science & Technology Committee
Re: S-l26 & H.R. 35, Earthquake Prediction & Hazards
OFFiCERS Reduction
Chairman of the Board
E.J.Caldecott In addition to the innate worthiness of Earthquake
~erterFaadeyH&e Prediction and Hazards Reduction legislation now being
President considered by Congress, (S-126 and H.R. 35) we urge a
Albertj.Aoer particularly intense research leading to amelioration
TheirvineCompany through legislative recommendation concerning the socio-
Eaecutllc~Premdent economic impacts that will occur between prediction and
Ernest W. Hahm~ Inc. quake.
In view of the scientifically provocative nature
Center of the topic, prediction is likely to occur within the
Secretamy/Treascrer research community regardless of the status of federally-
Edmond&Back!cnd supported research; albeit congressionally-funded endorse-
LegalCounsel - ment will increase the dedication and scope of prediction
William N. Willens research.
Barren Steams. Collins.
Gleason&Kmney Prediction tends to substitute for hazard reduction
programs and focuses interest on specificity of predic-
DIRECTORS tion at the expense of attention to prediction effects.
C Preliminary information indicates that economic and
WllliamC Brown social reactions triggered by prediction could be a
JohnS.Gnffith&Co. great deal more costly in terms of income, employment,
JohnN.Dayton economic decisions, dislocation and social instability
than the actual quake. This preliminary information is
JohnJEgan rudimentary, but already it indicates these issues could
Consuftant become the altering force, for better or worse, of
Mao~/s (Rehred) earthquake prediction.
Lindley H. Miller. Jr.
Gunn-M/erC:mpeny Consequently, we urge that Congress specify addi-
MemellJacobs&Gersh tional and concurrent research on the following topics
FredenckM.Nicholas leading to reports in one year's time as the basis of
TheHapsm~thCompany legislation to mitigate the socio-economic effects of
JohnHReccnga.Jr. earthquake prediction.
Timothy Strader
DonKotCompany . Government assumption of insurance quarantees,
at least commensurate with the level of pre-
prediction insurance carried by the property owner.
PAGENO="0183"
179
April 21, 1977
Page Two
* Tax incentives and tax reductions
- For precautionary alteration and construction
on existing buildings, and
- for offsetting economic and business decline.
* Offsetting of tax revenue declines for local,
state and regional governments through federal
aid.
Government aid to communities for the continu-
ation of public services after, and as, tax
revenues decline.
Unemployment compensation to counter prediction-
stimulated economic dislocation and decline.
Assurances of continuation of public and private
projects planned or underway in predicted areas
through government aid.
* Iunelioration of financial consequences for
development projects already in a period of
"front end' financing,and/or long-term financing
concurrent with earthquake prediction announce-
ment.
Research on economically practical up-grading
of precode buildings.
* Economic inducements for up-grading precode
buildings.
* Methods of forestalling adverse, domino-effect,
economic decisions by small and satellite
businesses based on perceptions of major indus-
trial, financial institution, and public agency
actions.
Economic effects and prevalence of opportunism
generated by prediction.
Necessity for alteration of financial institution
regulations as a consequence of prediction.
PAGENO="0184"
180.
April 21, 1977
Page Three
* Stability aids for residential, owner-occupied
real estate values.
Mortgage availability and consequences of pre-
diction.
Precataclysmic assistance for disaster effects
arising from prediction.
Legal, economic and cred.ibility consequences
of false alarms and inaccurate predictions.
Local, state and regional government announc~-~
ment policies, procedures and preferred strategies.
If the foregoing precautionary observations are made
an integral research requirement for earthquake prediction
legislation now being considered, we believe that Congress
will be better equipped to respond with appropriate legis-
lative safeguards at the time prediction systems become
a reality.
Sincerely,
~ ~
James A. Cook
Executive Vice President
JAC : dh
0