Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/19/1998 08:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 408 - SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION Number 0295 CHAIR JAMES announced the next order of business is HB 408, "An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission," sponsored by Representative Davies. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked if it was her intention on moving it out today. CHAIR JAMES replied she didn't know because they haven't heard it. If we get done in time, and we're happy with it certainly we could vote on it. Number 0303 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, presented HB 408 and distributed a map which illustrates Alaska as "earthquake country." He mentioned we have some of the largest earthquakes in the world. The map lists the ten largest earthquakes that have occurred in the world in the last century or so. As you can see three of those ten have occurred in Alaska, of course everybody is familiar with the 1964 earthquake that occurred in Anchorage. TOP TEN QUAKES IN THE WORLD, 1904-1992: Chile, 1960, 9.5 Alaska, 1964, 9.2 Alaska, 1957, 9.1 Kamchaka, 1952 9.0 Ecuador, 1906 8.8 Alaska, 1965, 8.7 Assam, 1950, 8.6 Banda Sea, 1938, 8.5 Chile, 1922, 8.5 Kuriles, 1963, 8.5 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES indicated the point of the map is to say that, while that was the second largest earthquake that occurred in recorded history, that's not an unusual earthquake for Alaska. So the point is, we should expect earthquakes to occur in the future. How often they occur and where they occur is a subject of a lot of research, some of which he was engaged in years ago. Number 0327 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the purpose of the bill is to establish a "Seismic Hazard Commission." The commission would be housed in the Office of the Governor. The purpose would be to provide an umbrella, coordinating and clearinghouse kind of function for seismic hazard mitigation work. He said seismic hazard mitigation work is the work that is focused on both the design of buildings and locating buildings in such a way that damage that occurs, when the next earthquake occurs, will be minimized. So it's sort of the prevention versus response kind of issue. He said we can prevent a lot of damage if we have appropriate building codes, we can also prevent loss of lives if have appropriate building codes and land- use plans. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained the commission would focus on trying to implement those ideas and coordinate them across agencies in the state. He said there currently is a significant amount of work going on, but it's mostly ad hoc. It's by one agency or the other, private groups, the Anchorage "Geotech" Commission does a lot of good work, but that focuses, of course in Anchorage. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said there's another commission that's the response commission that currently exists, and again, that's for planning for response. He indicated these are very closely related but are two different functions. One is to prevent as much as possible (indisc. - noise) the need for a response in case of an earthquake. So we do need to plan for responses because we will have earthquakes, they will be damaging, there will be injuries and loss of lives, so the planning function is very important. Representative Davies said that's already taken care of in the existing statutes, what he's contemplating here is the prevention part. Number 0360 ROD COMBELLICK, Chief Engineering Geology, Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, Department of Natural Resources, testified in support of HB 408 via teleconference. He said, "From my perspective, as one who works primarily in the area of earthquake geology, finding out where these areas are that are more susceptible to earthquake damage, I think this is an important bill and a seismic safety commission for Alaska is long over due." MR. COMBELLICK said, as Representative Davies indicated, Alaska is one of the most seismically active areas in the world. He noted we've been lucky for the last 34 years that we have not had any significant damage from earthquakes since the big one in 1964. However, Alaska is like a big dartboard for earthquakes and our communities are at the center of that dartboard. We've had a lot of large earthquakes occurring, many earthquakes in the magnitude of the six and seven range that fortunately have been occurring away from our developed areas, but like shooting toward a dartboard, eventually one of those darts hits a target and it's only a matter of time before one of these large earthquakes hits one of our developed areas. Mr. Combellick stated these urban areas are expanding and we know we can expect this high rate of seismic activity to continue, that there will be future large earthquakes in Alaska, which virtually guarantees that one of these urban areas will be hit. Number 0387 MR. COMBELLICK pointed out Alaska is doing pretty well in the area of emergency response preparedness primarily through the efforts of the Division of Emergency Services, the Emergency Response Commission, and through the Alaska Disaster Act. But we're way behind in the area of mitigation - things that we can do to prevent damage and thereby reduce the need for emergency response. Alaska in fact is the only seismically active state in the country that still does not have a seismic safety or advisory commission of some sort. Ironically the first seismic safety commissions that were established, starting with California, began as a result of the Alaska 1964 earthquake. People realized that this is a reality that was going to have to be addressed and that, although as Representative Davies pointed out, we cannot predict the time, size, or location of major earthquakes. We can identify areas where the damage is likely to be greater, and therefore we can plan and design our developments accordingly with proper building codes, zoning ordinances, and just better public information. MR. COMBELLICK mentioned there are presently 20 other states that have seismic advisory boards of some sort, including states in what we generally regard as low-seismic areas like Vermont, Illinois, Delaware and New York. These states all have seismic advisory boards, and these are separate from their own state emergency response commissions. He stated it's because of this need to focus the efforts of seismic mitigation in one body. MR. COMBELLICK concluded, he said he thinks that this bill is important in establishing a statewide seismic advisory commission, we have a number of agencies doing different things in this area of seismic hazards, with no-rule coordination, no real guiding force to guide us in what direction we should go in these efforts. He indicated the "geotechnical advisory commission," of the Municipality of Anchorage is a good model of something that could be done on a statewide basis. Mr. Combellick said he believes the governor's office is an appropriate place for this commission because of this need for coordination of many state and local agencies. Number 0427 NICO BUS, Manager of Administrative Services, Department of Natural Services, and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs [shared position] came before the committee. Mr. Bus announced the Department of Natural Resources is in support of this legislation in terms of providing extra expertise in earthquakes, and those types of hazards. He indicated Director Carol Carrol isn't able to attend due to an emergency. MR. BUS said the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Division of Emergency Services, they have a staff of two individuals, a hazard mitigation officer and an earthquake program (indisc.) are responsible for identifying areas of danger and methods to avoid or reduce the damage. (Indisc.) works with local communities on these projects, and a commission like this would basically add a source of information to this division as well as the state Emergency Response Commission. The Emergency Response Commission resides in the Department of Environmental Conservation and has a different focus. Although they are responsible for oil hazards, he belies a commission like this would just provide added expertise and it would be beneficial to all people on this earth. CHAIR JAMES said she has a question on the fiscal note and the amendment. She stated the amendment says the Officer of the Governor shall provide staff support to the commission. And the fiscal note from the Office of the Governor assumes a "fourth-time" clerical staff will support commission activities as technical support needs will be met by existing staff in the Department of Natural Resources. Chair James mentioned, "They don't need anymore, but they need a 'fourth-time' clerical staff in the Office of the Governor." Number 0460 CHAIR JAMES said, "Yesterday, in fact is, I have a bill which would license social workers, and I was in the Labor and Commerce Committee with that and we heard testimony from Catherine Reardon [Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic Development] -- because originally they told me, in my negotiations, how we did the bill - wouldn't have a fiscal note. But she came forward with a fiscal note for half-time and when she explained to us how much time she needed, probably additionally for the licensees there, and it came up to maybe 23 percent or whatever, but she said she was told she couldn't do four-quarters of a person, she had to do for half. So I assume this looks like a half here too, but you're saying it's a quarter of time of clerical staff. ... So I'm wondering, if all they need is a quarter, if they couldn't just absorb it. And so, I don't have to deal with a fiscal note here. They can deal with the fiscal note when it gets to Finance. But I think we do have to kind of take a look at it and make comments about it anyway because if it only requires a quarter of the time for clerical staff, it seems to me like that needs to be then absorbed." Number 0476 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 by Representative Davies: Page 2, line 4, insert: The Office of the Governor shall provide staff support to the Commission. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. CHAIR JAMES noted the other fiscal note from Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, the Department of Natural Resources, is just for travel - a couple thousand dollars. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES pointed out the fiscal note is redundant with the travel that's in the Office of the Governor and will be resolved when the bill gets to the House Finance Committee. CHAIR JAMES said the committee can move it only with the other fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ added that it can be moved with both fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he didn't object. Number 0490 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned he grew up in California and this type of preparedness is absolutely essential. He stated the property value saved, the loss of life, it's just incredible that we're not making preparations and it seems one of the core things that the government ought to be doing is to protect people in the contingency in this sort of an emergency. CHAIR JAMES said she agrees with his statement and intends to move the bill. She indicated her hesitancy is when we put on another level of regulations and requirements that we inhibit some activities that may not happen or are too expensive. She said you could say, if you're going to make yourself safe, that there's no expense that's too much. She asked Representative Davies what he anticipates, what kind of interference or change might he see in the construction industry in the state. Number 0505 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that's a fair question, that's one that, of course, one struggles with all the time in prevention-type activities. How much prevention is appropriate? He noted there is a provision at the end of the bill that provides that this commission would not take over responsibilities or duties away from any existing agencies. So the intent in that is to say that there's no additional regulations that would be put in place by this advisory commission. The intent is that it be a catalyst for action. So rather than being in the way of anything happening, the hope is that it would bring people together that are working on different pieces of the same puzzle and put it together. Sec. 5. This Act is not intended to transfer the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission the authorities and responsibilities of other state agencies, boards, councils, or commissions or of local governments. CHAIR JAMES asked if it would be awareness. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied part of it is certainly awareness. One of its activities, that does go on from time to time, is having workshops where you bring for example structional engineers together and coach them and train them in a new addition to building code or that kind of thing. That's one of the activities that is actually done currently to some extent by some folks in "DES" and also by some, under the sponsorship of the Anchorage Geotech Advisory Commission from time to time. He said these things are happening now, but on an ad hoc basis, here and there. They need to be strengthened and they need to be coordinated. He said he thinks by bringing the existing pieces together, that the existing parts would make a stronger hold. Number 0532 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said the only concern he has is with the role of private companies, with their architectural plans. He asked, "Must they do the same thing as you do with the fire marshall, approving buildings prior -- will we get to that point." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied the way that most seismic hazard mitigation is implemented is primarily through the building code or through land use planning which happens right now. This wouldn't change that. This commission would be an advisory to those existing mechanisms of building codes. And generally, if you add a requirement to the building code, and you know about it up front, it adds very little cost. If you have to retrofit, at some time later down the road, it can be very expensive. He mentioned that is one of the issues that California is struggling with right now, there's a great issue for example with unreinforced masonry, many of those buildings are through various incentive programs. California is helping building owners retrofit some of those kinds of buildings. Those things can be expensive but the cost is recognized in those things, the building owners recognize that they are reducing their exposure and risk to law suites by doing that. So there's a tradeoff that has to be balanced in the impact of a regulation on an industry. Representative Davies said there's no new mechanism envisioned by having this commission it's just that this commission will be advisory to those existing mechanisms that provide for building codes and for land use plans. Number 0560 CHAIR JAMES stated she is troubled with the building code issue because "we change them like we change our shirt," and then we end up having buildings out of compliance. She indicated that's always bothered her, we know things more tomorrow than we do know today. She said it seems to her like we just have a practice of upgrading them all the time to new materials mostly. She said she believes the building codes are driven by the supply industry of new materials and things that they find, or new methods that they've learned. So it doesn't necessarily mean, when there's a code violation that there's a serious deficiency in the building. It seems like we're just going to add one more reason that we'll be changing our code more often and she hoping that that's not true. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied he is sure that happens but he doesn't think it's as common as perhaps she implied. He said he thinks most of the codes are driven through professional organizations like the Structural Engineers Association. They're national and international groups, they go out, and one of the things that happens after a large earthquake for example is a team of engineers goes out and examines what happened and they learn lessons. And then those lessons learned are digested through many professional meetings and then are promulgated then as code revisions. They're saying, "Look, we did this wrong, we didn't tie these beams together properly," so the next revision of the code ought to provide for a flange in that kind of a joint. So those kinds of issues, and lessons learned, are then brought forward and we do learn things as time goes on and that's the natural progression of why codes change. Representative Davies said he believes we also generally provide for grand fathering, that a building is built under a particular code is legal and safe and everything as long as the building doesn't get substantially changed. If a substantial amount money is going to be invested to modify the building, or something like that, then usually the requirement is to bring the building up to code if it is a viable thing to do financially. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said most of his experience with this has been retrofitting houses, it's easy to put in shear walls and bolt the house down to the foundation, which is all you need to do for most places and take care of the unreinforced masonry problem. He said those seem to be the big three of what to do, and indicated that's not a real problem up here. Number 0597 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move HB 408 as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, CSHB 408 (STA) moved from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|