Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/24/2001 08:06 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 53 - SEISMIC HAZARDS SAFETY COMMISSION Number 0035 CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 53, "An Act establishing the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission." [Before the committee was CSHB 53(MLV).] Number 0070 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that HB 53 would establish the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC), which would work out of the Office of the Governor. The ASHSC would consist of a number of people who are expert in earthquake issues and who would provide oversight for the entire state of Alaska regarding mitigation of earthquake hazards. With regard to the difference between [earthquake] mitigation and [earthquake] response, he explained that mitigation involves ensuring that the loss of life and property are minimized to begin with, whereas response involves rescue and cleanup after an earthquake occurs. Fundamentally, the goal of the ASHSC would be to focus on prevention. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that in the United States and other "more advanced" countries, building codes/standards do much to mitigate the loss of life and property. When there is a "magnitude 5" earthquake in a country that does not have such codes - where un-reinforced masonry is the standard - tens of thousands of people lose their lives. By comparison, when there is a magnitude 5 earthquake in the United States, it generally results in very little damage and simply becomes another news item. Building codes are the fundamental reason for this difference. However, he added, "our" knowledge is not perfect; there is still room for significant advances in building codes. In Alaska, building codes are adopted municipality by municipality; it's up to the individual municipalities to decide whether they want to adopt various parts of the seismic code or not. Much of Alaska, even the Fairbanks North Star Borough, for example, has not adopted such a code. The building standards are largely enforced indirectly through the insurance industry: when a person applies for a mortgage, he/she is often required to have an inspector look at the house to see whether it is built according to codes. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that since there are many areas in Alaska that don't have building codes, he believes that having the ASHSC in place to look at the state's building practices will continue to advance the safety [levels] of Alaska's buildings and hence, Alaska's citizens. He noted that even in a fairly dramatic earthquake, about 80 percent of the loss is actually just structural loss inside the buildings. Thus, from a financial point of view, designing buildings so that lighting and plumbing fixtures are attached correctly can become a huge issue in terms of the building being functional right after an earthquake. Taking care of things like computer systems - making sure that computer systems are backed up offsite - are very important in terms of a business plan, in terms of people being able to function the next day after a large earthquake. Number 0479 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the fundamental problem that HB 53 is attempting to address is that large damaging earthquakes occur very infrequently, hence, many people go through their entire lives without experiencing one, which is good, but this creates a tendency to ignore the hazards. "What we're trying to do here is have a group that, over the long haul, puts a little bit of time and energy into addressing these issues so that when the event inevitably does occur, ... the losses are minimized." He opined that spending a little bit of money now [on HB 53], would save a huge amount of money later. He added the ironic note that the "Good Friday earthquake" in 1964 in Alaska acted as a wakeup call for most of the western United States; in the wake of that earthquake, those other states established seismic hazard commissions, whereas Alaska, which experienced that earthquake, didn't. He offered that he is merely trying to catch up via HB 53. CHAIR COGHILL asked whether any state [agencies] or municipalities have come forward with any advice, counsel, or information. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that there are currently a number of resources in the state: the Division of Emergency Services (DES) under Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA) is probably the most statewide in its focus, he opined, and does some work with various communities along the lines of mitigation via tsunami warnings, and actually receives small amounts of federal money for this purpose. He said he considers this sort of activity to be "mitigation work" because it allows people to plan ahead and possibly avoid loss, which in turn avoids the necessity for recovery efforts. He noted that there are other resources at the federal level as well; the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has some folks in Alaska who are helping to run the seismic networks and volcano warning systems, and who do provide some advice and counseling when issues relating to hazards mitigation come along, although that is not their primary focus. Number 0687 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES also noted that there is a state seismologist at the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, who provides the primary impetus for recording earthquake information, which is the basic data upon which decisions regarding earthquake mitigation and hazard reduction are made. At the municipal level, he added, Anchorage has a geo-technical advisory commission that also provides comments on these types of issues. He noted that the "state survey," primarily through Rod Combellick, has done a great deal of work in the Anchorage area aimed at understanding the frequency with which "Good Friday type earthquakes" occur there. So there are already a number of resources in the state, he said, but the [ASHSC] established via HB 53 would be "the umbrella" that would coordinate those resources and bring a little more focus to the issue of mitigation. CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that the Uniform Building Code is always in the "upgrade" mode, and he opined that building with earthquakes in mind has certainly been a part of that [process]. He asked whether there is any way of bringing the Uniform Building Code to bear, other than through municipalities. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "We do it through state agencies when they contract for buildings or [are] having buildings built; we usually require as part of that, that the buildings be built according to that code." In response to a question, he said he anticipates that the [ASHSC] would look at what the state is doing in terms of its own "building stock" to ensure that the state adopts the newest provisions in the code. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS, after noting that he was not present when Kodiak had a big earthquake, said that Kodiak already has an extensive planning process: emergency preparedness teams coordinate with fire departments and emergency shelters. The equipment is all there, including beds provided by the Red Cross, for the time period after an emergency occurs. He added that Kodiak has adopted the Uniform Building Code. He said he has never heard anyone clamoring for "more supervision on this." He opined that although Representative Davies anticipates that the ASHSC would simply coordinate agencies and activities statewide, he is not sure that [lack of coordination] is a problem at this point. Number 0969 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded: "The purpose of this bill is to do stuff that people aren't clamoring for." The problem, he offered, is that people, during the course of their daily lives, really don't deal with issues of building codes. He noted that in his area, for example, very few people who are building a house actually tie the two stories together with bolts in the way that they should because it is not part of the building code or practice; it's not that they're negligent, they just don't know that this is the single most cost effective thing they can do to mitigate problems. He explained that there are a variety of things like that that are hidden from the ordinary citizen's daily life because earthquakes are not experienced everyday. "We have raincoats and we tend to put them on because we experience rain on a fairly frequent basis; we don't worry about earthquake hazards ... when ... designing a house, ... most people don't have earthquake insurance, even." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that earthquake insurance is very expensive relative to the hazards in most areas of the state. He opined that by having the right information, the cost of earthquake insurance in Alaska could be reduced significantly while still being actuarially sound from the insurance industry's point of view. "It's those things that we don't look at. A lot of the things that [Representative Stevens] talked about are in that preparing-for-response [category], as opposed to mitigation; mitigation ... primarily works through upgrading the building code." Unless a person is a building contractor, he/she really doesn't pay much attention to the code. He opined that it is really important as a state to have a small group of people who do pay attention to it. Representative Davies mentioned that when he was the state's seismologist, there was a proposed change to the seismic hazard map suggested by some people out of southern California that was egregious and would have cost the state over $10 million per year in unnecessary building expense had he not prevented that change from occurring. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated that he is not trying to create a big bureaucracy or a regulatory agency with HB 53; he is just trying to "create a group of people" that look out for the best interest of the citizens of Alaska by providing good information regarding building codes, so that when people go about their daily business, it is done in a more cost-effective way. Number 1191 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked what kind of information the ASHSC would provide to the public. She opined that a lack of knowledge is a big part of why people are resistant to complying with building codes. She noted that HB 53 is proposing to include people who are very knowledgeable about "these" issues. She suggested that there should be opportunities for the ASHSC to have "regular responses to the people," not only about how they can build their buildings but also about how they can protect themselves in the case of an earthquake. She asked if such would be part of the ASHSC's duties or if its only purpose would be to look at building code issues. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that there is inevitable overlap between mitigation and response activities, and while it is his intent that the ASHSC focus on the mitigation part, where it is appropriate it could also be a forum for providing response information. He opined that the nexus would be strongest in the area of preparing homeowners for things that they should look for and tend to [before an earthquake] and things that they can do [after an earthquake]. There are some very simple things that people can do when looking through their own homes, especially in Fairbanks where there are a lot of cabins built on pilings, which enable a homeowner to get under the house and look at everything and ensure that the main structure is attached to the pilings. He noted another thing to look for is that the furnace is secured so that during an earthquake, fires don't start because of a loose furnace. He said that information about these and other simple cost-effective steps could be disseminated by the ASHSC via the Cooperative Extension Service. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that a lot of people in Alaska build their own houses, and therefore incorporating information about earthquake standards into the building courses offered by the university would be another way of getting this information out to the public. CHAIR COGHILL remarked that he received a lot of helpful information from the Cooperative Extension Service when he built his own house. Number 1449 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that creating awareness is a good idea. She also mentioned that even though it was reported that Fairbanks did not sustain any damage during a recent earthquake, some damage did occur but was not noticed until later; for example, her well pipe broke away from her well pump and both had to be replaced. REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that although he applauds Representative Davies for bringing forth this issue, he still has concerns about the fiscal notes. He pointed out that although there is an extensive program with a complex administration outlined in HB 53, the fiscal notes don't illustrate this. He said he really has to question whether "you're going to get away with one part-time [position] at $13,400" in fiscal year (FY) 2003. He said he expects to see [the ASHSC] coming back to the legislature in future years asking for more money. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted that if future legislatures believe that [the ASHSC] has proved its merit and that it would be cost effective to provide more money, then "that would be up to them." He said his intent is that they rely heavily on the existing expertise available in the state, and that that aforementioned position would be a quarter-time position within the governor's office - an existing staff person who, under "other duties assigned," would have the job of coordinating the meetings of the ASHSC. He added that there is a small amount of travel [expense] anticipated: he expects that the ASHSC would meet four times a year, twice via teleconference to keep the costs down. He explained that most of the people involved would be people like the person at the state geological survey and the person at the geophysical institute, whose jobs, in part, are to focus on these kinds of issues, and which is why he feels that [the ASHSC] can get by with a fairly small budget; "because we have a cadre of experts," both in the public sector and the private sector, who are dedicated to and concerned with these issues. Number 1689 SHELDON E. WINTERS, Attorney at Law, Lessmeier & Winters, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm"), said that State Farm strongly supports HB 53, particularly since a representative of the insurance industry would be on the ASHSC. He noted that the insurance industry participates "hand in hand" with similar commissions in other states. He said he believes that this type of commission is very beneficial to the public for the reasons that Representative Davies has already stated. In response to questions, he said that within the industry, there are already catastrophe committees made up of representatives from different insurance companies, so while he has not thought out the details of such an appointment, he does not foresee any problems with the governor choosing an experienced representative from the insurance industry. Number 1824 MILT WILTSE, Director, Central Office, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys (DGGS), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference and noted that Rod Combellick, mentioned earlier, is one of the DGGS's senior geologists. Mr. Wiltse added that Mr. Combellick is extremely knowledgeable; has professional connections with many people working in the seismic hazards fields in Washington, Oregon, and California; and is the lead person in the DGGS dealing with seismic issues. Mr. Wiltse relayed that through Mr. Combellick's tutelage, he is now more aware of the complexity of dealing with disaster mitigation and recovery response. He noted that the ASHSC could give conscious focus to the myriad of things that could be done to mitigate earthquake damage, in addition to coordinating the state's efforts on this issue. MR. WILTSE noted that there are many people in Alaska working in the [seismic hazards] field who focus on specific pieces of the response problem, which is one of the reasons why Alaska's disaster response team is so effective: there is a consortium of people who focus on how to respond to a disaster. He added, however, that Alaska doesn't have the same sort of consortium tasked with putting together a comprehensive set of mitigation measures - a strategic plan that could be followed year to year throughout the state. He opined that putting a commission of this sort in place and tasking them with coming up with that strategic plan and focusing and coordinating the efforts across the various agencies would move the state a great distance down the road toward vastly decreasing the effects of any future massive seismic event. He also opined that [HB 53] is a tremendous idea and will pay tremendous dividends by formalizing coordination efforts, getting people to recognize the responsibility for thinking broadly, and bringing together the efforts of the DMVA, Geological Survey, utility companies, insurance industry, contractors, architects, engineers, and other people involved in this issue. He added that he heartily supports HB 53 both personally and as a state geologist. CHAIR COGHILL noted that he is simply concerned that [the ASHSC] might come in and say, "You've got to do all these things," which would cost the state millions of dollars. He asked Mr. Wiltse how he envisions the ASHSC interacting with the DGGS. MR. WILTSE posited that it would be an "interchange type of setup"; the DGGS would bring the ASHSC the fundamental data needed for its deliberations, such as strong motion seismic measurements and geological data. This type of information could then be forwarded to engineers so that they can design and analyze the design of buildings and other structures such bridges, transmission lines, pipelines, et cetera, in order to include the types of safety factors needed to mitigate damage from ground motions. He noted that [HB 53] sets the foundation for trying to assess risk. In response to questions, he noted that mitigation takes a conscious effort, which is currently not made. He added that some people might focus on another "Good Friday" type of earthquake, but the real risk could come from a completely different type of more localized earthquake. Number 2280 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS noted that it seems like "we've come a long way" in terms of prediction of earthquakes. He asked Mr. Wiltse if it is the DGGS that works on earthquake prediction issues. MR. WILTSE responded that the DGGS works on those issues to the extent that it can, and it also coordinates those activities with the university and to some extent with the USGS. He noted that the DGGS doesn't have as good a tectonic model for Alaska as is available for other states. He detailed, as an example, some of the similar geological features between Los Angeles and Anchorage, but pointed out that there is not as clear a picture of Anchorage's features. CHAIR COGHILL mentioned that the concept of HB 53 looks like a pretty good idea. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS surmised then that if anyone is ever going to begin coordinating the prediction of earthquakes, it would probably be the ASHSC. He asked if that would indeed be the case. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that he envisions the ASHSC, not so much doing the predicting themselves, but remaining knowledgeable about the state of the art and encouraging those activities within Alaska wherever it might be fruitful. He added that another role of the ASHSC is to evaluate "charlatan" predictions because local governments don't always have the ability to do so. Earthquake prediction is not yet fully developed to the point of being able to pinpoint exactly where and when an earthquake will occur; currently, predictions can be made only with regard to the probability of an earthquake happening in any given zone. And yet, he noted, just knowing even those probabilities can be very helpful in terms of focusing mitigation efforts. CHAIR COGHILL asked whether the ASHSC would have any representation from the "private building area." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered that such representation is [authorized by language on page 2, line 19, subsection (c)(7)], which says: "three members from members of the public who are knowledgeable in the fields of geology, seismology, hydrology, geotechnical engineering, structural engineering, emergency services, or planning." He relayed, however, that members of the oil and pipeline industries have suggested to him that the word "expert" should replace "knowledgeable". Number 2542 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, deleting "knowledgeable" and replacing it with "expert" on page 2, line 19. CHAIR COGHILL objected for the purpose of discussion. He noted that it is pretty well lined out in paragraph (7) that these three public members would be "professional" members. He asked whether "expert" would denote some sort of certification. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES replied that it is just a question of the level of expertise or knowledge; he did not have a specific definition in mind for the word "expert". He relayed that the concern of the industries suggesting the change is that members should not simply be people who are trained in some other field of science and just happen to have a little bit of knowledge in the aforementioned fields; rather, the members should be people, like structural engineers, for example, who are focused on earthquake design, not just structural engineers who have taken a course on earthquake design 25 years ago. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked how it is determined that someone is an "expert". REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES suggested that the word "expert" would merely offer the governor some guidance when choosing the public members. He added that the distinction is that, "We want somebody that really has some expertise," not somebody who just has some casual knowledge. REPRESENTATIVE FATE, after noting that paragraph (4) of the "Powers and duties" section on page 3 says that the ASHSC shall "gather, analyze, and disseminate information of general interest on seismic hazard mitigation", asked how the dissemination aspect of these duties would be accomplished unless one of the public members is an expert in the media field. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the "Powers and duties" section were drawn fairly broadly so as not to constrain the ASHSC. He added that the primary dissemination of information would be done through professional channels as well as through existing channels in the university's cooperative extension service and the DMVA's DES. Number 2704 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES withdrew Amendment 1, saying she likes HB 53 the way it is. Number 2712 REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS then made the motion to adopt Amendment 1, deleting "knowledgeable" and replacing it with "expert" on page 2, line 19. REPRESENTATIVE FATE objected. REPRESENTATIVE STEVENS said it makes perfectly good sense to change the language from "knowledgeable" to "expert"; after noting that he has read a couple of books on Alaska geology, he said that while he is knowledgeable on the subject, it would be foolish to put him on the ASHSC. "What we need are people who truly understand and have experience working in the field," he stated. REPRESENTATIVE FATE withdrew his objection. Number 2745 CHAIR COGHILL noted that there were no other objections to Amendment 1. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2753 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 53(MLV), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 53(STA) was reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|