Custom Search
|
|
|
||
 MIL-HDBK-1013/14
5.2.2
Acceptable Damage and Injury Levels. In Steps 5 and 7 of Figure 1, determine the
expected injury levels to personnel protected by the facility and damage to the facility and if
these levels can be tolerated, based on the results of Step 4 and the level of protection selected in
Step 1.
For the protection of personnel, first priority should be given to those performing
mission-critical functions or who are critical to mission accomplishment. One major concern is
the number of personnel who could be injured or killed in the event of a terrorist incident.
The user must make decisions based on the risk involved and the probability that an
incident would take place. Facilities with high exposure (i.e., close to the fence line or with little
standoff distance) and high concentrations of personnel should be considered at higher risk.
High-profile or unique-process facilities that could be attractive targets to terrorist
factions because of the political impact (e.g., arms, ammunition and explosive storage facilities
or military headquarters buildings) should be considered at risk and considered for protection
against explosive effects.
5.2.3
Accepting Additional Risk. If adequate standoff distance (Step 3 of Figure 1) or
funding (Steps 8 and 10 of Figure 1) is not adequate to produce acceptable damage and injury
levels (Steps 5 and 7 of Figure 1), other alternatives must be evaluated or a decision made to
accept additional risk (Step 11). Willingness to accept additional risk usually decreases as the
value of the asset or potential loss of personnel increases. Additional risk is usually accepted if a
lower explosive threat or less standoff distance is accepted. Assuming that identified
vulnerabilities have a low probability of being exploited is another way of justifying additional
risk.
5.2.4
Site Modification Alternatives. In Step 6 of Figure 1, the achievable site layout is
determined by the present or planned arrangement of the facilities to be protected. Structural
characteristics of existing or planned facilities and the potential for expanding the site to gain
more standoff distance are key factors in determining a site layout that will effectively protect a
facility.
The optimum design objective is to locate threatened facilities at a distance from
protected perimeters that will significantly minimize damage and injury caused by a vehicle
bomb explosion. Options for meeting this objective can include one or more the following:
a) Restricting access of large vehicles to reduce traffic in the area of the facility;
b) Redirecting traffic or realigning roads so vehicles will pass further away from the
facility;
c) Erecting vehicle barriers to prevent breaching of the protected perimeter;
9
|
 
|
|
|
||
