Putting USGS Research to Use:Putting USGS Research to Use:User Perspectives on Research Evolution,User Perspectives on Research Evolution,

Accomplishments, and ChallengesAccomplishments, and Challenges

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP)USGS Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP)

Lloyd S. CluffLloyd S. CluffDirector, Geosciences Department

Earthquake Risk ManagementPacific Gas and Electric Company

San Francisco, California

Congressional Briefing on EarthquakesCongressional Briefing on Earthquakes

Natural Hazards Science:Natural Hazards Science:Reducing America’s Risk From EarthquakesReducing America’s Risk From Earthquakes

May 12, 2006May 12, 2006

Pacific Gas and ElectricPacific Gas and Electric

70,000 square miles70,000 square milesof service territoryof service territory

15 million people served15 million people served

4.1 million gas customers4.1 million gas customers

5 million electric customers5 million electric customers

3,400 buildings3,400 buildings

San Andreas faultSan Andreas fault

70% of SA fault traversesPG&E service territory Active faults

PG&E at a Glance

EHP-AccomplishmentsEHP-Accomplishments

• Learning from earthquakes

• National Hazards Maps

• Surface fault rupture effects characterized

• Near-source ground motions characterized

• Regional hazards assessments

• Earthquake forecasts and Shake-Maps

San Francisco Bay Area(1992-2006)

Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) on Earthquake Hazards

Public/PrivatePartnership(1991-2006)

Active Faults

SF

San Francisco

Sacramento

Active faults

All PG&E Facilities

Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities Earthquake Risk Management Policy* for Utilities and Transportation Systems and Transportation Systems

Program to understand hazards and system Program to understand hazards and system vulnerabilitiesvulnerabilities

Plan to implement risk management optionsPlan to implement risk management options Dedicated staffDedicated staff Dedicated budgetDedicated budget AccountabilityAccountability

*California Seismic Safety Commission, 1990

Public/Private PartnershipLifelines User-Driven Research Program (1996-2006)

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center• PG&E• Caltrans• California Energy Commission• Other stakeholders for specific projects (USGS,

FEMA, and the Southern California Earthquake Center)

• $15 million leveraged funding

Nishenko 2006

Nishenko 2006

Nishenko 2006

San Andreas Fault Rupture

Rodgers Creek Fault Rupture

Hayward Fault Rupture

Gas transmission

Scenarios

Hayward Fault ScenarioHayward Fault Scenario

UC Berkeley

Nishenko 2006

Hayward Fault Scenario

PG&E Seismic Retrofit Projects for Earthquake Performance Improvements –

(1986 to 2006)

Facilities Cost ($ millions)

Buildings 300Substations 45 Dams and Related Hydro Facilities 75Power Plants 60 Gas Pipeline Replacement 1950Loma Prieta Repairs 75

TOTAL INVESTMENT ~ $2.5 billion

Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements Earthquake Performance Mitigation Improvements for Utilities and Transportation Systemsfor Utilities and Transportation SystemsSan Francisco Bay Area (1989 to 2006)San Francisco Bay Area (1989 to 2006)

PG&E – Gas and electric systems Caltrans – Bridge and highway systems East Bay MUD – Water systems BART – Rail transportation system San Francisco Water Department

Combined existing and planned expenditures ~ $15 billion

Susitna Glacier fault

Epicenter

Denali fault

Totschunda fault

Rupture Length ~ 354 kmMaximum right slip ~ 8.8 m

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Success Story November 3, 2002 M 7.9 Eq & Denali fault rupture

TAPSTAPS

T. Dawson, 2002

Not a drop of oil was spilled !

P. Haeussler 2002

P. Haeussler 2002

Denali fault-crossing design zone

71-Fault characterization data sites

Pipeline

Denali fault crossing

Teflon-coated concrete and steel beams

Teflon-coated pipeline support shoes

L. Cluff, 1976L. Cluff, 1976

Denali fault crossing design zone

L. Cluff, 1976L. Cluff, 1976

2000 ft

Fault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zoneFault rupture through Denali fault crossing design zone

2000 ftMost likely location

Right slip will cause pipeline to experience axial compression

Denali fault-crossingdesign parameters

Horizontal, 20 feet Vertical, 5 feet

Up

Pipeline performed asdesigned; and not adrop of oil was spilled !

November 3, 2002 ruptureNovember 3, 2002 rupture• Horizontal, 18 feet• Vertical, 3.5 feet• Axial compression, 11 feet

7.5 ft7.5 ft

10.5 ft10.5 ft

Fault displacement 18 ftFault displacement 18 ftWidth of deformation 660 ftWidth of deformation 660 ft

Fault displacement design zone2,000 ft wide

Conclusions and Recommendations

Seismic safety must be given priority• 39 states have significant seismic exposure• They will experience painful deaths and

staggering economic losses• The losses are preventable by implementing

mitigating measures

Conclusions and Recommendations The USGS must initiate a leadership role:

A complete analysis of the consequences of catastrophic California earthquakes (San Francisco Bay Area / Southern California Region

Integrate all hazards threats to develop a comprehensive emergency response for all infrastructure elements that will institute a full and speedy recovery for society

The lessons learned in this demonstration project would be applicable to all national extreme disasters

Conclusions and Recommendations

There is an urgent need to fully implement the USGS Advanced National Seismic System through appropriations that are consistent with Congressional Authorizations

It is in the public interest to support research for lifelines infrastructure and buildings

•Multi-hazard emphasis•User-driven•Standardized post-event data collection Successes Challenges