| Q&As on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Reconnaissance and Assessment of Damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
1. Why did
NIST assess damage from Hurricane Katrina when there are other
groups doing the same thing?
Each
of the agencies involved in reconnaissance and performance
assessments following Hurricane Katrina have differing missions.
NIST’s
reconnaissance and assessment of the performance of physical
structures following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita was a coordinated
federal study and the only effort that addressed the damage
from both major hurricanes to strike the Gulf Coast (Katrina
and Rita) and encompassed the broad scope of issues for major
buildings, physical infrastructure (levees, bridges, water
and wastewater systems, power, communications and industrial
facilities), and residential structures. Additionally,
many of NIST’s
recommendations are applicable to hurricane prone regions of the
country outside the areas directly affected by the two hurricanes.
The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been focused on reconstruction
of the flood control system protecting New Orleans and on conducting
a detailed performance evaluation of the flood control system to
guide the rebuilding and, where needed, improve the system beyond
its current level of protection in the future.
FEMA's
Mitigation Assessment Team (MAT) was deployed in response to
Hurricane Katrina to evaluate the performance of buildings
both in and out of designated flood hazard areas. Based on
the observations and documentation of the storms’ impacts,
the MAT evaluates the adequacy of current building codes, materials
and construction practices in the region as well as the building
standards and requirements contained in the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP). The MAT team also documents the successes and
best practices. FEMA’s MAT after Hurricane Katrina focused
on the Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans. Four NIST engineers
were on the FEMA MAT.
The Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER), with funding
from the National Science Foundation (NSF), conducted reconnaissance
of damage following Hurricane Katrina. Three members of the MCEER
reconnaissance did participate in the NIST reconnaissance.
2. Were NIST’s
Katrina-Rita efforts coordinated with the NSF, FEMA and USACE?
NIST began coordination with FEMA and other agencies on Aug. 29,
2005.
Four
staff from NIST deployed in cooperation with FEMA’s
MAT to observe damage to buildings and residential areas in coastal
Mississippi during the week of Sept. 26, 2005.
NIST staff also coordinated visits to document breaches
in the levees and floodwalls with USACE staff. Two USACE staff
served on NIST reconnaissance teams in Louisiana and Mississippi.
One NIST staff member is participating on the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Task Force (IPET) study of the New Orleans flood protection
system.
Two
staff from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) served on
NIST reconnaissance teams in Louisiana and Texas.
When
disasters occur, NSF provides Short Term Grants for Exploratory
Research (SGER grants) to expert investigators from academia
who are knowledgeable about disasters and their consequences
and who can make a valuable contribution to an investigation
team. NSF researchers affiliated with the MCEER participated
in the NIST-led reconnaissance team.
The
federal agencies that have conducted work in the Gulf region
following Hurricane Katrina have openly shared information
on findings since the beginning. NIST also has shared draft
versions of its reports with FEMA, USACE, FHWA, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
3. Why
wasn’t
the NIST Katrina-Rita reconnaissance effort conducted under
the authority of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST)
Act as an investigation?
NIST
used the broadest possible authorities to give it maximum flexibility
to assess the performance of physical structures during the Gulf
Coast hurricanes last fall. The NCST authority is appropriate
for investigating a building failure where substantial loss of
life could or did occur.
NIST
was interested in the performance not only of structures that “failed” but also those that sustained “damage.” Additionally,
NIST was interested in damage not only to the structure but also
to other building systems such as roofing, cladding and utility
systems. NIST also examined infrastructure components such as pipelines,
bridges and electrical distribution that is outside the scope of
the NCST language. The NCST authority was not broad enough and,
hence, not appropriate for the NIST Katrina-Rita effort.
4. If
the USACE is currently rebuilding the levees and the NIST
report is just now coming out, how will the report’s
recommendations be implemented?
USACE
was part of the NIST reconnaissance, so all preliminary findings
and recommendations concerning the levees were made available
to USACE as they were developed. Thus, the rebuilding activities
and the detailed technical studies that are being conducted by
USACE is consistent with NIST’s recommendations.
For example, the USACE IPET Force is conducting a detailed evaluation
of the performance of the levees during Hurricane Katrina and,
based on its findings, will issue a report with recommendations
to improve the flood control system beyond the current rebuilding
work. Recommendation 1 in the NIST report addresses the levees
and calls for exactly this kind of response.
5. USACE released the draft final report of the IPET study on
June 1, 2006. How do the IPET study findings differ from those
of the NIST reconnaissance?
The NIST reconnaissance team only made visual observations of
levee and floodwall failures at several sites. The IPET study,
in addition to visual observations, has included experiments and
analytical studies to determine possible causes for the failures
of levees and floodwalls. NIST has reviewed the findings of the
IPET study for the locations observed by the NIST team, and NIST's
findings are consistent with those of the IPET study.
6. How
much did the NIST-led reconnaissance effort cost and how was
it funded?
The total cost of the reconnaissance effort, through the dissemination
of the final report, is approximately $800K. These funds came from
redirecting other NIST funding to this effort.
7. Will federal rebuilding dollars be tied to implementing recommendations?
If not, why bother with issuing the report?
NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards
or codes.
Once
a reconnaissance or investigation is completed and recommendations
for improvements are made, NIST actively works to have proposed
code changes submitted, reviewed and adopted in a timely manner
into the national and international model building codes (used
as templates for codes legislated, implemented and enforced
by state and local jurisdictions), standards and industry practices.
In the case of the report on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, many
of our recommendations do not require code changes. Rather, they
recommend adoption of, strict adherence to, and solid enforcement
of already existing model building codes.
Each
of the recommendations in the NIST report identifies the specific
entities at all levels of government (federal, state and local)
and the private sector with a mission interest in the recommendations.
NIST shared the report with each federal agency so identified
and has scheduled briefings—in cooperation
with FEMA—during June 19-21, 2006, for state and local building
officials in the affected states.
8. If the NIST recommendations aren't implemented into code, isn't
the research a waste of federal funding?
See answer to question number 7.
9. Does NIST know whether federal agencies responsible for implementing
recommendations have already incorporated recommendations into
rebuilding plans?
The
federal agencies that have conducted work in the Gulf region
following Hurricane Katrina have shared information on their
findings openly. In several cases, agencies are already undertaking
efforts that are consistent with the recommendations in NIST’s
report. Examples include:
The USACE IPET is studying the performance of the New Orleans
flood control system and will make detailed recommendations for
improvements beyond the current rebuilding effort.
FHWA
issued an initial guidance document on “Coastal
Bridges and Design Storm Frequency” to provide regulatory
and engineering rationale for considering both surge and wave
forces, specifically for those coastal states affected by Katrina.
FHWA
is further developing a plan of action to coordinate with stakeholders
on performing studies and research for coastal bridges vulnerable
to scour and hydrodynamic forces. FHWA issued a solicitation
for a study to develop retrofit strategies and options to mitigate
damage to bridges subject to coastal storm hydrodynamic factors
with the objective of producing guidance that can be rapidly
implemented and incorporated into design standards as appropriate.
At the state level, Louisiana has adopted the International
Building Residential, Existing Building, Mechanical and Fuel
Gas Codes (developed by the International Code Council) for
the 11 parishes affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita effective
immediately for rebuilding. The codes go into effect statewide
for new construction in 2007. This follows our recommendations
for adoption, adherence and enforcement of current codes.
10. Who has reviewed and cleared the NIST Katrina-Rita report?
NIST established a rigorous review process for the report
that included reviews coordinated by both government and outside
experts as well as a formal interagency review.
11. An
NSF-funded Independent Levee Investigation Team at the University
of California, Berkeley issued a report on May 22, 2006,
detailing damage assessments it made of the New Orleans levees
and flood control system following Hurricane Katrina and,
based on these findings, made recommendations for improvements.
How does this team’s findings and recommendations differ from NIST’s?
Berkeley’s effort was an in-depth investigation focused
solely on the levees and flood control system in New Orleans. Along
with a technical assessment of damage to these structures following
Hurricane Katrina, the team also looked at institutional, organizational
and policy issues that may have led to their failure. NIST
conducted a broad-based reconnaissance—not a detailed investigation—of
the damage incurred from Hurricane Katrina that included as one
aspect a damage assessment of the New Orleans levees and flood
control system. NIST’s findings are based strictly on technical
observations and do not focus on programmatic, organizational or
policy issues.
12. The front page of the Washington Post on
April 13, 2006, had an article about “feds setting guidelines for
rebuilding” in New Orleans. How does this fit in with what
NIST is doing?
The Washington Post article
of April 13, 2006, refers to the release of advisory flood
data for New Orleans and much of the surrounding area. There
are two parts to the announcement: technical and policy. On
the technical side the announcements are consistent with NIST’s
recommendations. These include:
Raise levee heights and complete other levee work.
Allow the upgrade or replacement of existing flood
I-walls and T-walls (these walls will have larger skirts,
better foundation piles and splash pads for protection from
erosion due to overtopping).
Provide 100-year flood protection to about 98 percent
of the population in the New Orleans area.
NIST does not make policy recommendations (such as what
specific flood level should be used in reconstruction or how
much the buildings should be elevated in flood prone regions
to obtain federal reconstruction funds or insurance).
13. How
does NIST plan to disseminate the findings?
The NIST Katrina-Rita report will be available online and in print.
NIST plans to conduct briefings for state and local officials in
the affected states, members of Congress and their staff from the
affected states. NIST also intends to follow up with standards
and codes organizations on specific recommendations that impact
them.
14. What
is the plan for the implementation of NIST’s recommendation
at the state level?
NIST, in conjunction with FEMA, has worked with the states
impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to set up briefings on
the NIST report and recommendations with state and local officials
for June 19-21, 2006.
NIST also is arranging briefings for members of Congress
and staff from the affected states and making known its willingness
to further share its findings and recommendations at the state
and local levels.
15. What
role did NIST play in the development of FEMA’s
MAT recommendations in the wake of Katrina and Rita? These include:
reconstruction guidance, initial restoration for flooded buildings,
design/construction in coastal zones, the ABC’s of returning
to flooded buildings, and attachment of brick veneer in high-wind
regions.
Four NIST structural engineers participated in the FEMA MAT deployment,
contributing their observations of damage to buildings based on
their expertise to the FEMA MAT. NIST also has shared findings
and recommendations from its reconnaissance with FEMA staff.
16. Did NIST participate in any of the FEMA MAT activities?
See answer to question number 15.
17. Did FEMA participate in any NIST activities?
NIST coordinated with FEMA beginning on Aug. 29, 2005, to plan
deployments to the hurricane-affected areas. FEMA staff did not
deploy with the NIST reconnaissance; however, NIST has shared the
draft final reconnaissance report with FEMA.
18. Does
FEMA's major multi-year effort to modernize the flood insurance
rate maps adequately deal with NIST's recommendation to develop
risk-based storm surge maps? If not, why not?
FEMA's map modernization program uses storm surge models as an
input to determine the 100-year flood risk in coastal areas. However,
the current FEMA effort is not intended to provide as an output,
information on storm surge height, current velocity, and wave height
and period that would be useful for structural design in storm
surge-prone regions. Development of storm surge maps to define
the hazard basis for structural design will build on FEMA and USACE
storm surge modeling being performed as part of the flood map modernization
program under FEMA leadership. All of the relevant agencies have
agreed to coordinate their efforts to ensure that the needs for
structural design are adequately met.
19. Does
NIST's recommendation on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale
mean that it should not be used as the basis for making public
warnings and evacuation decisions?
No.
The Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale assigns intensity to a storm
based on its maximum sustained wind speed. While the definition
of scale includes potential storm surge, storm surge values are
highly dependent on the slope of the continental shelf and the
shape of the coastline in the region of landfall. NOAA uses other
analysis tools to more accurately predict the potential storm surge
from an approaching hurricane and considers these values when producing
hurricane advisories. NIST's recommendation suggests evaluating
the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale’s treatment of storm surge
effects and determining if the scale should be modified to enhance
its ability to communicate the hazard of an approaching hurricane
to the public either by (1) completely decoupling storm surge from
the scale or (2) better accounting for storm surge effects by factoring
in site-specific conditions such as topography and bathymetry (depth
from the sea surface to the seafloor) along with hurricane wind
speed.
20. Does
NIST’s
report make recommendations related to evacuation?
No, the focus of the NIST Katrina-Rita report was solely on the
performance of physical structures in the regions affected by Hurricane
Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
21. What research is NIST conducting under the umbrella of the
National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program?
NIST has an ongoing research project to develop and apply Database
Assisted Design techniques for estimation of wind loads on building
structures. This project was initiated before the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Program began but is consistent with the intent
of the program.
The
recently released Windstorm Impact Reduction Implementation
Plan discusses how FEMA “facilitates improvements
to national building codes and standards” (page 19) with
no mention of NIST. What is NIST’s role?
The
reference that states that FEMA “facilitates
improvements to national building codes and standards” comes
under the heading of “Preparedness and Community Resilience,” a
role that is in keeping with FEMA’s mission. NIST is active
in the ASCE 7 Committee on Wind Loads and actively conducts research
that leads to the development of improved tools for estimation
of wind loads on structures and guidance for retrofit of structures
exposed to high winds.
22. Have
the recommendations that NIST made in its report on the fires
and collapses of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers been
implemented into code? Was
this investment in research a good use of federal funds?
On March 24, 2006, the first 19 proposed changes to model
building codes (used as templates for codes legislated, implemented
and enforced by state and local jurisdictions) based upon and
consistent with the NIST WTC recommendations were submitted to
the International Code Council (ICC).
Taken together, they are a robust, reasonable and appropriate
set of advancements and, if adopted, would represent a significant
improvement in public safety over current practice.
The
19 proposed changes—submitted by building code experts
associated with two ICC committees, the National Institute of
Building Sciences and the U.S. General Services Administration—address
areas such as increased resistance to building collapse from
fire and other incidents, use of spray-applied fire resistive
materials (commonly known as “fireproofing”), performance
and redundancy of fire protection systems (i.e., automatic sprinklers),
elevators for use by first responders and evacuating occupants,
the number and location of stairwells, exit path markings, and
fuel oil storage/piping.
All
ICC members will have the opportunity to vote on the proposals
at hearings scheduled for this fall. All changes passed, and
those which did not pass but for which public comments are
received, will then be up for approval—and inclusion in
the ICC codes—when ICC government member representatives
meet in the spring of 2007.
Return to News Release
Date
created: 6/08/06
Last updated: 6/09/06
Contact: inquiries@nist.gov
|
