Interim Report Section 2: Inquiry Process and Progress
2.5 Summary of progress
The following table lists reports received and pending in respect of the principal issues. It includes hearing dates where these have been scheduled as at the date of the Interim Report. It should be read in the context of the discussion above.
Table 1: Principal Issues – Summary of Position
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 1:
Seismicity
Hearings: Weeks commencing 17 and 25 October 2011
|
1a New Zealand’s geological setting
1b Seismological model for New Zealand, and in particular for Canterbury 1c Nature and severity of the Canterbury earthquakes 1d Geotechnical knowledge and its implications for foundation types 1e Conditions likely to give rise to liquefaction Reports Received ‘The Canterbury Earthquake Sequence and Implications for Seismic Design Levels’, GNS Science ‘Geotechnical Considerations: Foundations on Deep Alluvial Soils’, Associate Professor Misko Cubrinovski, University of Canterbury and Ian McCahon, Principal, Geotech Consulting Ltd ‘Geotechnical Investigations and Assessment of Christchurch Central Business District’, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd Peer Review 1 (Seismicity): Professor Ralph Archuleta, University of California at Santa Barbara Reports Pending Peer Review 2 (Seismicity): Adjunct Professor Norman Abrahamson, University of California at Berkeley Peer Review (Geotechnical Considerations): Professor Jonathan Bray, University of California at Berkeley
|
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 2:
Inquiry into buildings in the Christchurch CBD
Hearings: November and December 2011 (excluding CTV building)
|
2a Representative sample of buildings in the CBD
2b Why some buildings failed severely, in some cases causing death and injury while others did not Particular features, or patterns of features, that contributed to the failure of buildings Nature of foundations and the soils on which these buildings were located and how these affected performance of the buildings 2c Whether failed buildings inquired into in 2b complied with any applicable earthquake risk and other legal and best-practice requirements both when designed and constructed and on or before 4 September 2010 Whether, on or before 4 September 2010, those buildings had been identified as earthquake-prone or were the subject of measures to make the buildings less susceptible to earthquake risk 2d For the buildings inquired into under 2c, the nature and effect of any assessment of them and of any remedial work carried out on them after 4 September or after 26 December 2010, but before the 22 February 2011 earthquakes 2e The policies adopted by the relevant authorities in undertaking the assessments made of buildings after 4 September and 26 December 2010 Reports Received ‘Briefing: The Building Regulatory Framework’, Department of Building and Housing ‘Geotechnical Considerations: Foundations on Deep Alluvial Soils’, Associate Professor Misko Cubrinovski, University of Canterbury and Ian McCahon, Principal, Geotech Consulting Ltd ‘The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm’, Associate Professor Jason M. Ingham, University of Auckland and Professor Michael C. Griffith, University of Adelaide Peer Review 1 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer, Seismic Safety Commission, California, USA Peer Review 2 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Bret Lizundia, Principal, Rutherford and Chekene, Structural and Geotechnical Engineers, San Francisco, USA ‘Inelastic Response Spectra for the Christchurch Earthquake Records’, Professor Emeritus Athol J. Carr, University of Canterbury ‘Preliminary Observations from Christchurch Earthquakes’, John Hare, Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) ‘Base Isolation and Damage-Resistant Technologies for Improved Seismic Performance of Buildings’, Associate Professor Andrew H. Buchanan, Holcim Adjunct Professor Des Bull, Associate Professor Rajesh P. Dhakal, Associate Professor Greg MacRae, Alessandro Palermo, Associate Professor Stefano Pampanin, University of Canterbury Reports Received ‘Report into Building Safety Evaluation Processes in the Central Business District following the 4 September 2010 Earthquake’, Christchurch City Council ‘Historical Review of Masonry Standards in New Zealand’, Smith P.C. and Devine J.W, Spencer Holmes Ltd. ‘Processes Used and Lessons Learnt Following the Darfield Earthquake of 4 September 2010’, Esther Griffiths, Director, Sisirc Consulting Ltd and Deane McNulty, McNulty Engineering Management Ltd ‘Review of NZ Building Codes of Practice’, Associate Professor Gregory MacRae, University of Canterbury, Associate Professor Charles Clifton, University of Auckland and Mr Les Megget ‘Geotechnical Investigations and Assessment of Christchurch Central Business District’, Tonkin & Taylor Ltd ‘Building Safety Evaluation following the Canterbury Earthquakes’, David Brunsden, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Inc (NZSEE) Technical Investigation (PGC, Forsyth Barr and Hotel Grand Chanchellor buildings), Department of Building and Housing Reports Pending Technical Investigation (CTV), Department of Building and Housing ‘The Performance of Earthquake Strengthened URM Buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 Earthquake, Associate Professor Jason M. Ingham, University of Auckland and Professor Michael C. Griffith, University of Adelaide ‘Review of Sample Buildings’, William T. Holmes, Principal, Rutherford and Chekene, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, San Francisco, USA
|
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 3:
Inquiry into legal and best-practice requirements
Hearings: Weeks commencing 7 and 14 November 2011 (further hearings to be held in December and early 2012 if required) |
3a The extent to which the knowledge and measurement of seismic events have been used in setting legal and best-practice requirements for earthquake risk management in respect of building design, construction and maintenance
3b The legal requirements for buildings that are ‘earthquake-prone’ under section 122 of the Building Act 2004 and associated regulations, including – (A) the buildings that are, and those that should be, treated by the law as ‘earthquake-prone’; and (B) the extent to which existing buildings are, and should be, required by law to meet requirements for the design, construction, and maintenance of new buildings; and (C) the enforcement of legal requirements. 3c The requirements for existing buildings that are not, as a matter of law, ‘earthquake-prone’, and do not meet current legal and best-practice requirements for the design, construction and maintenance of new buildings, including whether, to what extent, and over what period they should be required to meet those requirements 3d The roles of central government, local government, the building and construction industry, and other elements of the private sector in developing and enforcing legal and best-practice requirements 3e The legal and best-practice requirements for the assessment of, and for remedial work carried out on, buildings after any earthquake, having regard to lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes 3f How the matters specified in subparagraphs (a) to (e) compare to any similar matters in other countries Reports Received ‘Briefing: The Building Regulatory Framework’, Department of Building and Housing ‘Standards and Regulation for Building Construction in New Zealand’, Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) ‘Structural Design for Earthquake Resistance’, Associate Professor Rajesh P. Dhakal, University of Canterbury ‘Report into Building Safety Evaluation Processes in the Central Building District Following the 4 September 2010 Earthquake’, Christchurch City Council ‘Processes Used and Lessons Learnt Following the Darfield Earthquake of 4 September 2010’, Esther Griffiths, Director, Sisirc Consulting Ltd and Deane McNulty, McNulty Engineering Management Ltd ‘Building Safety Evaluation Following the Canterbury Earthquakes’ David Brunsden, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Inc (NZSEE) ‘The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm’, Associate Professor Jason M. Ingham, University of Auckland and Professor Michael C. Griffith, University of Adelaide Peer Review 1 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer, Seismic Safety Commission, California, USA Peer Review 2 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Bret Lizundia, Principal, Rutherford and Chekene, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, San Francisco, USA Reports Pending |
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 4:
Change of New Zealand design standards and codes of practice over time
Hearings: Dates to be advised |
Changes in design philosophy for earthquake resistance as reflected in New Zealand design standards over the past 75 years having regard to:
4a Levels of seismicity used to calculate required design strengths and the deflections associated with the design level earthquake 4b Methods to determine design forces and methods used to calculate the strength required to resist them 4c Assumptions regarding stiffness of building elements and calculation of displacements induced by the design earthquake 4d Design principles used to calculate deflections caused by a major earthquake without collapsing or endangering life Reports Received ‘Structural Design for Earthquake Resistance’, Associate Professor Rajesh P. Dhakal, University of Canterbury ‘Preliminary Observations from Christchurch Earthquakes’, John Hare, Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) ‘Stairs and Access Ramps Between Floors in Multi-storey Buildings’, Holcim Adjunct Professor Des Bull, University of Canterbury ‘Review of NZ Building Codes of Practice’, Associate Professor Gregory MacRae, University of Canterbury, Associate Professor Charles Clifton, University of Auckland and Mr Les Megget Technical Investigation (PGC, Forsyth Barr and Hotel Grand Chanchellor buildings), Department of Building and Housing Reports Pending Technical Investigation (CTV), Department of Building and Housing
|
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 5:
Development of technical expertise in the design and construction of seismic resistant buildings
Hearings: Dates to be advised |
5a Academic and in-practice training of seismic engineers 5b Research to advance seismic performance 5c Application of technical knowledge in setting legislative and regulatory requirements Reports Received ‘Standards and Regulation for Building Construction in New Zealand’, Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand (IPENZ) ‘Base Isolation and Damage-Resistant Technologies for Improved Seismic Performance of Buildings’, Associate Professor Andrew H Buchanan, Holcim Adjunct Professor Des Bull, Associate Professor Rajesh Dhakal, Associate Professor Greg MacRae,Dr Alessandro Palermo, Associate Professor Stefano Pampanin, University of Canterbury ‘Preliminary Observations from Christchurch Earthquakes’, John Hare, President Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) ‘Briefing: The Building Regulatory Framework’, Department of Building and Housing
|
| Issue/Hearing Date | Matter and Reports Received and Pending1 |
|---|---|
| Issue 6:
Future Measures
Hearings: Dates to be advised |
New buildings:
6a Necessary changes to current design practice 6b Consideration of new technologies, including their cost Existing buildings: 6a New and recent methods of retro-fitting 6b Appropriate level of compliance with new building standards or alternative performance criteria, taking into account the cost of compliance Reports Received ‘The Performance of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings in the 2010/2011 Canterbury Earthquake Swarm’, Associate Professor Jason M. Ingham, University of Auckland and Professor Michael C. Griffith, University of Adelaide Peer Review 1 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Fred Turner, Staff Structural Engineer, Seismic Safety Commission, California, USA Peer Review 2 (Performance of Unreinforced Masonry): Mr Bret Lizundia, Principal, Rutherford and Chekene, Structural and Geotechnical Engineers, San Francisco, USA ‘Review of NZ Building Codes of Practice’, Associate Professor Gregory MacRae, University of Canterbury, Associate Professor Charles Clifton, University of Auckland and Mr Les Megget ‘Briefing: The Building Regulatory Framework’, Department of Building and Housing ‘Base Isolation and Damage-Resistant Technologies for Improved Seismic Performance of Buildings’, Associate Professor Andrew H. Buchanan, Holcim Adjunct Professor Des Bull, Associate Professor Rajesh P. Dhakal, Associate Professor Greg MacRae, Dr Alessandro Palermo, Associate Professor Stefano Pampanin, University of Canterbury ‘Stairs and Access Ramps Between Floors in Multi-storey Buildings’, Holcim Adjunct Professor Des Bull, University of Canterbury ‘Preliminary Observations from Christchurch Earthquakes’, John Hare, President Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) Reports Pending ‘The Performance of Earthquake Strengthened URM Buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February 2011 Earthquake’, Associate Professor Jason M. Ingham, University of Auckland and Professor Michael C. Griffith, University of Adelaide |
2.6 Submissions and hearings
The Royal Commission advertised, calling for expressions of interest, in newspapers throughout New Zealand. Notices were placed in four major metropolitan papers – the New Zealand Herald, Dominion Post, The Press and Otago Daily Times – in their 2 July 2011 editions, and again in The Press and Dominion Post on 13 July 2011. In addition, notices were placed in the following regional daily newspapers on 6 July 2011: Northern Advocate, Bay of Plenty Times, Waikato Times, Gisborne Herald, Wanganui Chronicle, Taranaki Daily News, Manawatu Standard, Hawke’s Bay Today, Nelson Mail, Timaru Herald, Southland Times and Greymouth Star and in the Marlborough Express and Hokitika Guardian on 4 July 2011. People or organisations were invited to meet with the Royal Commission, provide a written submission, participate in public hearings or communicate information to the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission received 80 expressions of interest from interested parties advising that they wished to make submissions. Those advising their intent to make a submission include people who were trapped in buildings as a result of the 22 February 2011 earthquake, building owners and tenants, persons with professional knowledge about matters arising in the Inquiry, learned societies, Auckland Council, the Christchurch and Wellington City Councils, Local Government New Zealand and the Department of Building and Housing.
Public hearings are being scheduled on an issue-by-issue basis. As set out in table 1, the hearings will commence on 17 October 2011. It is not possible to say when they will be concluded, because of the uncertainty about completion of the DBH’s technical investigation.
People wishing to give evidence and/or make submissions will be required to provide them in advance of the hearings. The Royal Commission is asking that this be done in electronic form, to facilitate publication of the material in advance on the Royal Commission’s website, thereby giving notice to other interested parties and the public of what is intended to be said. The Royal Commission will follow this approach in all cases, unless there are compelling reasons for a different approach, to ensure the effectiveness of the Inquiry. Public hearings will be streamed live via the Internet.
Advice received by the Royal Commission from those whom it has asked to provide it will be referred to in the hearings. The hearings will also provide an opportunity for parties with relevant evidence to provide it and be questioned. They include those who have filed expressions of interest and those whom the Royal Commission has itself identified as likely to have information that will assist the Royal Commission in carrying out its task.
The information considered will also include relevant evidence obtained and called by counsel assisting the Royal Commission.
2.7 Counsel assisting
Counsel assisting have a duty to ensure that the Royal Commission has the evidence and information it needs to fulfil its obligations under the Terms of Reference. Initially two counsel assisting the Royal Commission were appointed, Stephen Mills QC and Mark Zarifeh. In mid-August, Marcus Elliott was appointed as a third counsel assisting the Royal Commission, with a specific focus on representing the interests of those bereaved and injured in the February earthquake.
2.8 Meetings with families
The Royal Commission’s chairperson and members of the Royal Commission’s staff have been meeting with families who lost relatives in the February earthquake since the beginning of July. Most of these meetings have been with individual families, but some group meetings have also been held. The Royal Commission has appointed a Family and Community Liaison Officer. Her role includes responding to enquiries from families both New Zealand and overseas-based, and keeping them informed about reports being published and the Royal Commission’s progress in general, with updates by email and post.
In the week beginning 29 August, the Family and Community Liaison Officer attended the Coroner’s inquests and liaised with families, providing them with information about the Royal Commission, answering questions and offering support. The Family and Community Liaison Officer is working closely with the Senior Communications Advisor for the Royal Commission to ensure that families receive communications in a timely way and are advised of new information before it is released to the media.
2.9 Staffing of the Royal Commission
The Royal Commission is now fully staffed, including the executive director, a project manager, a senior communications advisor, senior policy analysts, information managers, hearings planner and administration team. Additional administrative support is provided to the Royal Commission by the Department of Internal Affairs.
Footnotes
1. Reports may be applicable to more than one inquiry topic and/or matter relevant thereto
