 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
60
VALUE STUDY PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
ACTIVITY:
SEISMIC SAFETY ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSAL NO. 3B.
EVALUATION ACTIVITY: USE AN INVENTORY AND EHR SCREENING
RESULTS THEN PRIORITIZE USING BUILDING TYPES.
Background:
The purpose of the evaluation activity under the EO is principally to determine whether life-safety
risks exists in a building. The function of this activity is to further prioritize the EHR list of buildings.
This allows the greatest risk structures to be identified and flagged for immediate action. Those
determined to be seismically deficient with the highest risk are identified for funding and subsequent
mitigation at the earliest practical time. The EO and guidance documents give general
recommended procedures and direct that agencies should create their own specialized procedures
to mitigate EHR buildings with deficiencies and meet their unique mission.
This proposal is one of four alternatives for evaluating the screened result of a building inventory
database that has been collected.
Proposal:
This proposal should be considered similar to the original proposal alternative. However, the method
differs from the methods specified to be fully complying with the EO and ICSSC guidance
documents. A flow chart of the process is shown in Figure 3.
Starting with list of EHR buildings developed under Inventory and Screening Component, it is
recommended that the buildings be prioritized based on numerical value developed from the RVS
process. If the RVS procedure was not done under the Inventory and Screening process it would
need to be done in this evaluation procedure.
Using an existing database, select buildings based on construction type. Unreinforced masonry and
precast concrete buildings representing the highest risk priority, and light wood frame and metal
buildings with the lowest priority.
The SPC would consider building location, occupancy, function, construction type, etc. The agency
requirements may be based on buildings critical to the mission, historic structures, buildings which
contain hazardous materials or other important contents, etc.
To reduce costs a sub-alternative within this option would be to group the buildings that are similar
and select one representative building or prototype building that would be evaluated from each
group. For example buildings would be grouped based on construction type (all unreinforced
masonry buildings). The cost for this sub-alternative would be an additional $5 per building.
However, fewer buildings would need to be evaluated.
The FEMA 178 partial and complete assessment may be necessary.
VEALTDES.TAB