Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/27/2001 05:17 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 53 - SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 53, "An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission." Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt CSHB 52, Version 22-LS0278\F, Lauterbach, 3/24/01, as the working document before the committee. There being no objection, Version F was adopted. Number 0212 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, testified as the sponsor of HB 53. Representative Davies noted that today is the [37th] anniversary of the 1964 earthquake, the second largest earthquake recorded in history. He also noted that there are more earthquakes, of a given magnitude, per day in Alaska than there are in California. Furthermore, Alaska sits on one of the major plate boundaries, the collision boundary between the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate, and thus a number of earthquakes are generated. Over the course of recorded history in Alaska, there have been five earthquakes of magnitude 7 or larger north of the Alaska Range. Representative Davies pointed out that the entire state is subject to some earthquake activity and thus it's important to understand [that fact and] keep it in mind when zoning and building. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that this bill will create the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission, which would [reside] in the governor's office. The commission would have an "umbrella status" over various agencies in order to have a body that could coordinate a seismic hazard mitigation policy for the entire state. He noted that a number of agencies deal with various aspects of seismic hazards, especially the Division of Emergency Services, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), and the Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), Department of Natural Resources (DNR). However, there is no state-level agency that deals with reducing the effects of earthquakes. The primary manner to reduce the effects of earthquakes is through building codes. Although [the U.S.] enjoys some of the best designed buildings, "we can do better." For example, although the recent Seattle area earthquake didn't do much damage, it still managed billions of dollars' worth of damage. In moderate to large earthquakes, most of the damage, 80-90 percent, is cosmetic. Number 0583 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES specified that this commission would survey what is being done in Alaska in order to stay up-to-date with modern building codes while making recommendations to executive and legislative branches as well as the various agencies. He pointed out that the legislation recommends that the commission be composed of nine members. The CS [on page 2, lines 18 and 19] changed the membership such that the four public members was decreased to three and a representative of the insurance industry was included due to its involvement in such situations. Number 0688 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if every full number in increase in magnitude equates to approximately ten times the prior number. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES answered that the magnitude scale is an open-ended logarithmic scale. He explained that the factor of ten refers to the amplitude of the wave. Therefore, magnitude 8 has a wave amplitude that's ten times larger than magnitude 7, which corresponds in energy to about 32 times. So, moving from magnitude 5 to magnitude 7 equals an increase of about 1,000 times in energy. Representative Davies pointed out that [lower] magnitude [earthquakes] are ten times more frequent. Therefore, people experience earthquakes a lot, but they are smaller [magnitude] earthquakes. In regard to the earthquakes the magnitude of the 1964 earthquake, those occur around every 500 years. Therefore, although it isn't likely that one would experience an earthquake such as the 1964 earthquake, it is likely that one would experience a magnitude 7 earthquake. "So, we need to be ready," he said. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the fact that the state creates such an advisory committee, would create any liability to the state. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied, "I don't believe so." Number 0867 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to why this commission is placed under the auspices of the Office of the Governor. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES answered that he felt that the commission would need the ability to coordinate across state agencies. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI turned to subparagraph (2) of the "FINDINGS" section of CSHB 53 and asked if there is "anything that kind of acts as an oversight." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that each agency that deals with this takes some responsibility to try to perform some coordination. However, there is no focus in state government on coordination in regard to mitigation versus preparedness. He explained that preparedness is getting ready to respond to an event when it actually happens, while mitigation takes steps ahead of time in order to lessen the scale of damage. Therefore, Representative Davies introduced the bill because the state doesn't have mitigation in place. However, he emphasized that he isn't proposing that the commission develop changes in the building codes that are implemented retroactively. This is a long-term look at the problem. Number 1148 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA informed the committee that her daughter was in a Seattle building that sustained earthquake damage. After viewing the area, she [realized] the importance of mitigation. She asked if this bill is different from the legislation in Washington State and if this bill included protections beyond those in the Washington State bill. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES answered that this bill is similar to Washington's legislation. He noted that Rod Combellick, Engineering Geology Chief, DGGS, DNR, surveyed what other states have done and that survey was used to design HB 53. However, Representative Davies said that this bill is patterned more after the California Seismic Safety Commission. He noted that the commissions in some states encompass all hazards, while others are strictly seismic. In this case, the legislation, and thus the commission it creates, focuses on the seismic issue in order to avoid becoming too cumbersome. Number 1253 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN related his understanding that the DGGS, DNR, tracks seismic activity along with other services that deal with subsurface activities. Therefore, he asked if the division is already capable or doing what the commission would. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that [DGGS] does work that supports the seismic networks used to monitor activity from both earthquakes and volcanoes. However, the primary research [from this division] has been geared towards understanding the long- term frequency of large earthquakes. Such research develops the scientific information that would allow public policy determinations. He clarified that the division is a scientific agency, not a policy agency and thus isn't in a position to drive these concerns. Number 1370 MILT WILTSE, Director, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources, testified via teleconference. Mr. Wiltse pointed out that when one is discussing disasters of the magnitude that could occur with earthquakes, the scope of the problem is staggering. It requires an amazing amount of coordination to be effective in dealing with such. As has been noted, Alaska has a long history of very effective preparation to respond to earthquake disasters. However, the state hasn't put forth the same effort to deal with the mitigation side of the issue. MR. WILTSE turned to the Olympia, Washington, earthquake and noted that the seismic hazards committee in Washington had a program to inspect buildings in order to mitigate damage. During those inspections, someone noticed that there was a water tank on the top of one of the schools, which would pose a hazard. Therefore, the water tank was emptied. After the earthquake it was noted that the water tank did topple, but because it was empty no damage was done to the school. Mr. Wiltse remarked that there are probably countless examples of such that resulted from a committee [focused on mitigation]. MR. WILTSE emphasized that he strongly believes that a group of people dedicated to thinking and strategizing about this issue would pull all the scattered state elements into a coordinated effort. He remarked, "The true story of their effect will never be written because we can avoid disasters that we wouldn't otherwise step around." Mr. Wiltse said that he thinks the proposed commission is a good idea, although he wished DGGS could do more. Number 1649 SHELDON WINTERS, Lobbyist, State Farm Insurance Company, voiced support of this legislation. He informed the committee that State Farm Insurance is involved in earthquake mitigation throughout the country and works hand-in-hand with all the other commissions in the other states. He has been told that the state commissions work wonders in the states where they are in place. Therefore, even if the bill passed without a representative from the insurance industry sitting on the commission, State Farm would still support the bill. Mr. Winters noted that the insurance industry pays for a great majority of the losses, and because of their involvement, the insurance industry has the ability to tap other expertise in the areas of building and seismic activities. Therefore, the insurance industry representative could serve as a conduit for information for the commission. Number 1746 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to what [the insurance industry] does to help with the mitigation. She related her understanding that earthquake insurance is prohibitively expensive in Anchorage. MR. WINTERS noted that he isn't an insurance expert or an earthquake expert. However, he cited building codes as the most obvious area in which the insurance companies can be involved. With respect to other state commissions, he has been told that the insurance industry is involved and can provide input, at least to tap the expertise available. With regard to coverage, Mr. Winters emphasized that such issues can be addressed by having an insurance representative on the commission. Number 1898 CAROL CARROLL, Director, Administrative Services Division, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), echoed Representative Davies' comment that DMVA is heavily involved in the planning for and response to disasters. However, "we do believe that there is a place for bringing these issues and elevating these issues to a commission that could develop some policies, recommendations, and kind of move us forward in a direction of mitigation," she said. Ms. Carroll noted that although DMVA does perform some mitigation and does receive mitigation money when there is a disaster, more work can be done. Ms. Carroll testified to the department's support of the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the department would rather the commission be housed within DMVA. MS. CARROLL replied, "There isn't any desire, on the part of the Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, to have the commission or not. In the governor's office is fine with us." REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the department merely wants the commission. MS. CARROLL related the belief that the commission is valuable. CHAIR CHENAULT asked if there was anyone else to testify. Hearing no one, Chair Chenault placed the bill before the committee. Number 1966 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a situation in which a CEO of a "good-sized" corporation is going to build a 28-story building in Anchorage. If this commission is in existence, what would that company do differently. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied, "Virtually nothing." REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to how this commission would help this situation. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed the hope that in the time before the corporation wants to build a large building, the commission would have worked with building officials and incorporated the most current research into the building code. Therefore, the corporation would merely be following the building code. In his view, [the commission] wouldn't impact that corporation at all. Although the corporation would follow the uniform building code for earthquake hazards, the numbers may be slightly different. Most of the construction changes that result are almost negligible in cost when following the code upfront. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to the ARCO Tower, which he was told has rollers on Teflon in its structure in order to accommodate motion. He asked if that was part of the Anchorage building code or part of the ARCO design. He also asked if such [code] would be developed by this commission. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that when one is building something such as the ARCO towers, generally the best seismic hazards staff are hired. He noted that many buildings today are built with seismic shock absorbers in an attempt to decouple the shear motion from the building, which is a fairly proven technique. In further response to Representative Green, Representative Davies agreed that such construction methods may be instituted in the building code as a result of the commission's work. Representative Davies saw the [changes being instituted] mainly through building codes with some change in the land use planning. Number 2120 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI inquired as to why [other states] have seismic hazards commissions and Alaska, the state with a large earthquake in its history, does not. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES answered that most of the other states adopted their commissions in response to Alaska's earthquake. He agreed with Representative Murkowski that many people probably felt that Alaska had its big earthquake and thus was off the hook. Although there is some truth to that, there is the possibility of a magnitude 7 earthquake in Anchorage and that is significant. Therefore, preparation is important. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to an article that discussed the faults that lie in Southeast Alaska. CHAIR CHENAULT placed the bill before the committee. Number 2227 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report CSHB 53, [Version 22- LS0278\F, Lauterbach, 3/24/01] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 53(MLV) was reported from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|