(57n) Implementation of Hazard Mitigation Solutions: Consequence Vs. Risk-Based Building Specifications

Travis Holland, Joshua Bruce-Black

Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants

3330 Oakwell Court, Suite 100

San Antonio, TX 78218

tholland@bakerrisk.com, jbblack@bakerrisk.com

Abstract

There are various strategies to mitigate occupant vulnerability and risk after completion of a consequence based facility siting study (FSS) or quantitative risk assessment (QRA). One potentially cost-effective mitigation strategy is to focus on reducing the occupant vulnerability and risk to personnel by upgrading existing buildings or designing new buildings. A building specification is commonly used to relay a small set of building design parameters based on the results of a consequence based FSS to engineers or contractors. However, with the industry shift towards risk based studies (QRAs), there has been a growing perspective that the information required to develop an appropriate building specification is more complicated given the increased number of variables involved in a QRA. Using the development of a new control room specification as an example, this paper will compare and contrast the steps and benefits/drawbacks involved in developing an appropriate building design basis employing a consequence and risk based approach. This paper will highlight how establishing tolerance criteria, emergency response strategy, personal protective equipment (PPE), and building occupancy early in the project definition stage promotes effective streamlined communication in the specification and reduces the differences between consequence and risk-based building specifications.