 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ACTIVITY: SEISMIC SAFETY ALTERNATIVES
vii
As a result of the value study, the VST recommends that Interior
program the funds necessary to fully comply with the EO. This
recommendation is made due to the VST's perception of Interior's
safety responsibilities and the apparent financial risk. The VST notes
that the relative cost to identify, evaluate, and rehabilitate or vacate
exceptionally high-risk buildings is viewed as small when compared
to the potential cost of compensation claims to persons injured or
killed in Interior structures during a seismic event. The financial risk
would be further exacerbated by the presence of the standing EO
(as well as the NEHRP of 1977). Managers evaluating the value
study proposals will need to further consider these features as well
as other agency specific issues.
Proposal No. 4A is the VST recommended method to fully comply
with the EO. It combines the VST recommendations specified in
Proposal Nos. 1A, 2A, and 3A for each of the required EO sub-
activities. These proposals are the only value study alternatives
presented that would fully meet the EO. Proposal No. 4A would
provide the "best" basis for protecting the public and Interior
employees. All other presented value study alternatives would
require a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for either partial or full exemption from the EO requirements.
(Assuming that such an exemption can be obtained.) Based on some
reasonable assumed ratios of buildings falling into the various EO
categories, the estimated approximate program cost for the VST
recommended method to fully implement the EO would be around
$10,500,000. Once bureaus obtain further knowledge of their
specific situation and capabilities, the VST also recommends that
additional value study activity, during program implementation, to
refine activities for the selected program direction and enhance the
final program value obtained.
In the event that funding becomes an issue affecting the ability of
Interior to conduct the EO activities, the VST recommended that
management direct that an alternative such as Proposal No. 4B be
performed. It combines required sub-activity Proposal Nos. 1B, 2B,
and 3C. This alternative would generate a reasonable program value
while expending minimal funds. The recommended lowest EO
related expenditure alternative would collect additional information
that has minimal cost to obtain, but measurably enhances the final
result. The recommended minimal expenditure screening activity
would only use the single added data item and other pre-existing
information. The minimal recommended evaluation effort under the
EO would be to use a simple site visual inspection that has been
established by the ICSSC and occupant knowledge. The VST
recommends that Interior strive to go beyond this minimal effort
pending funds availability. This alternative would not fully meet the
EO or ICSSC guidelines and would require an exemption from the
EO by the OMB. Based on the same assumed ratios of buildings
falling into the various EO categories, the approximate cost for this
alternative would be about $1,400,000.
Additional funding would be required every year to maintain and