| |
House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Research
Hearing on the Recent Nisqually Earthquake in Seattle,
and Federal Efforts to Mitigate Damage Caused by Earthquakes
March 21, 2001
The House Science Committee's newly renamed Subcommittee
on Research held its first hearing of the 107th Congress
on March 21, 2001. The hearing was entitled Life in
the Subduction Zone: The Recent Nisqually Quake and
Federal Efforts to Reduce Earthquake Hazards. Testimony
was received from Dr. John Filson, Coordinator of
Earthquake Programs at the USGS; Dr. Priscilla Nelson,
Director, Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems
at NSF; Dr. Stephen Palmer, Washington State Department
of Natural Resources, Geology and Earth Resources
Division; and, Dr. M. Meghan Miller, Professor of
Geological Sciences, Central Washington University.
Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) opened the hearing by saying
that one issue of concern to him is the current unbalanced
federal research portfolio, and the consequences the
disproportionately low funding level requested for
NSF will have on long-term productivity and our standard
of living. He noted that NSF-funded research often
leads to economically important breakthroughs which
can save lives, and that the Nisqually earthquake
hearing would highlight this point.
Dr. Filson focused his remarks on the geological causes,
the seismological and geological effects of the Seattle
earthquake, and lessons learned. He described the
three major roles of the USGS as being earthquake
monitoring and notification; earthquake hazards assessments;
and, research on earthquake processes, theory, and
effects. Dr. Filson explained tectonics and ground
shaking patterns, along with the three different types
of earthquakes; very large earthquakes, deep earthquakes,
and shallow earthquakes, with Nisqually being considered
a deep earthquake. Dr. Nelson explained that NSF supports
individual investigators in post-earthquake research
and funds reconnaissance activity through NSF consortia
and research centers, and awards to professional organizations.
She described the Incorporated Research Institutes
in Seismology (IRIS) consortium, and how it provides
the seismographic facilities to monitor earthquakes
worldwide. Dr. Nelson also described how the Nisqually
reconnaissance teams produced reports that will be
developed into a comprehensive assessment by the Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute (EERI), and discussed
some of the summary observations. She also noted some
of the research focus areas that have been identified
as a result of the Nisqually earthquake. Dr. Nelson
further explained that in engineering, the recent
focus has been on new methodologies for design involving
Performance Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE).
Dr. Palmer noted that the Nisqually earthquake is comparable,
in terms of seismic energy release, to the Northridge
and Kobe earthquakes, but damage here was moderate
because the release of energy occurred 30 miles beneath
the earth's surface. Noting that the location of the
Nisqually earthquake was within a few miles of the
1949 Olympia earthquake, likewise a deep earthquake,
Dr. Palmer said damage patterns of the Nisqually earthquake
were well understood and predictable prior to the
event. Severe damage occurred primarily in older unreinforced
masonry buildings and bridges. While he noted there
are bigger quakes to come, Dr. Palmer said this incident
is a wakeup call for accelerating earthquake hazard
mitigation in this region and many other at-risk areas
throughout the country. Dr. Miller noted that the
Nisqually earthquake was the first in the Pacific
Northwest to be detected with GPS geodesy. She noted
that Central Washington University received NSF support
to densify the Pacific Northwest Geodetic Array (PANGA)
continuous GPS network in the Puget Lowlands in order
to address critical questions regarding the Nisqually
and future Pacific Northwest earthquakes. Dr. Miller
further noted that the scientific community is ready
to expand these observations in a manner that will
support a systematic accounting of seismic hazard
in many vulnerable states through the Earthscope initiative
approved by the National Science Board.
Chairman Smith questioned witnesses on the use of technology
to predict earthquakes. Dr. Filson noted that you
can't predict earthquakes like hurricanes - we need
to understand the physics of earthquakes, before prediction.
Dr. Nelson said we are coming more to terms with how
to prepare, and what it means to be prepared. She
said as we learn more about the environment, we will
understand more. Members also questioned witnesses
on the investment in research and mitigation in relation
to the cost -- loss of life and property. Dr. Nelson
said the more we know about the performance of structures,
the more we understand the cost impacts. We need to
know the risks for mitigation.. She explained the
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES)
and the mobile labs that can evaluate on-site structures.
She said it's good for the social impact because it
builds public trust in how to repair after an event.
Members also questioned witnesses on how well we are
prepared for earthquakes, on building codes, and on
warning systems. Dr. Nelson noted the importance of
PBEE in understanding the response of buildings with
respect to preparedness and building codes. Panelists
stressed the social implications of a warning system
by asking what people would do with the information,
and who would be in charge of the information, and
what would they say. Dr. Palmer also noted the liability
concern. Dr. Nelson noted that this is an area of
research that needs to be addressed.
Various members also addressed the panel as to research
being conducted in other parts of the country besides
the west coast. Dr. Filson described the efforts of
the USGS, while Dr. Nelson noted work supported by
NSF at the University of Illinois in liquefaction,
adding that more needs to be done in understanding
seismic risk in major cities. She said we can learn
from structural damage to old buildings in Seattle
and take this to mid-America. Dr. Palmer noted that
codes need to be scrutinized to address liquefaction.
Chairman Smith questioned witnesses on how satellites
could be used for seismic activity. Dr. Miller discussed
three satellite efforts currently underway. Final
questions addressed efforts to encourage the next
generation of scientists and engineers.
See also:
|
|
