Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
Floods bring substantial debris along and this exacerbates the flooding. Daan Poppema and his students replicate this in our new outdoor campus flume, measuring the rise when debris blocks the bridge.
💡The future results can enhance our preparedness for future flood events. pic.twitter.com/k5vWvRqBvp
— TU Delft (@tudelft) August 11, 2023
“Spring Night, Harlem River” 1913 Earnest Lawson
Many school districts, colleges and universities are affected by annual spring flooding in the Central United States; seasonal inspiration for revisiting the technical and management codes and standards to avoid and/or mitigate water damages that may be originate with host municipality water supply and control authorities.
The standards developed by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and its affiliate institute — Environmental Water Resource Institute (EWRI) — should appear in the design guidelines given to professional services firms retained by the facility construction, operations and maintenance workgroups. We encourage our colleagues in these units to update their design guidelines with the latest versions of the documents linked below:
ASCE/EWRI 56: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Water Utilities. These water utility guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons.
ASCE/EWRI 57: Guidelines for the Physical Security of Wastewater/Stormwater Utilities. These wastewater/stormwater utilities guidelines recommend physical and electronic security measures for physical protection systems to protect against identified adversaries, referred to as the design basis threats (DBTs), with specified motivation, tools, equipment, and weapons. Additional requirements and security equipment may be necessary to defend against threats with greater capabilities.
Note that these documents are “paired” for the obvious reason that potable water systems must be separate from all other water systems.
No redlines that are in the upper tier of our priority rankings are open for public comment at this time; though there are two that might interest building contractors:
Standards currently accepting Public Comments include:
Public Comment for ASCE-SEI 24 Flood Resistant Design and Construction (Comment Deadline 9/26/24)
Public Comment for ASCE/SEI 32-01 Design and Construction of Frost-Protected Shallow Foundations (Comment Deadline 8/05/2024
Public Comment on ASCE 7-22 Supplement for Chapter 5 (Comment Deadline 1-15-2023)
Public Comment on ASCE 7-22 Supplement for Referenced Standards (Comment Deadline 1-15-2023)
We encourage direct engagement by education industry leaders, their engineering consultants, or municipal water management experts to participate in the development of these standards through the ASCE standards portal:
ASCE Standards Public Comment Page
You will need to set up an access account. You may also communicate directly with the American Society of Civil Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Dr., Reston, VA 20191. Contact: James Neckel (jneckel@asce.org).
We keep water-related ASCE titles on the standing agenda of our Water colloquium. See our CALENDAR for the next teleconference; open to everyone.
Issue: [18-52]
Category: Civil Engineering, Water, #SmartCampus
Colleagues: Jack Janveja, Richard Robben, Steve Snyder, Larry Spielvogel
LEARN MORE:
This facility class has many names but is similar in our approach to them: the settings that provide primary care in a visible, central service. After the chapel, the library, the kitchen and the classroom, the on-campus medical center is a central fixture. These clinics typically provide basic medical services primarily aimed at addressing the immediate health needs of students and sometimes staff. These clinics are often staffed by a nurse or a small team of healthcare professionals such as nurse practitioners or physician assistants.
Access to school-based clinics is often limited to students and staff during school hours. They may not be open during weekends, holidays, or outside of regular school hours.
University of Michigan Health Service: Reproductive Health
University of Vermont: Primary Care at Student Health Services
University of North Dakota Student Health Services
University of Chicago Student Sexual Health
University of California System Abortion Services
During today’s open door session we examine the literature relevant to making this facility class safer, simpler, lower-cost and longer-lasting in the links below, including open public consultation close dates:
The Center provides comprehensive healthcare services to students. Located on the Logan campus, the clinic offers a range of medical services including general health check-ups, vaccinations, mental health support, and chronic disease management. Staffed by experienced physicians, nurse practitioners, and support staff, the clinic aims to address both physical and mental health needs. Students can access acute care for illnesses and injuries, preventive care, women’s health services, and counseling.
The clinic also provides lab services, prescriptions, and referrals to specialists when needed. With a focus on promoting wellness and healthy lifestyles, the USU Student Health Clinic ensures that students receive quality care in a supportive environment, contributing to their overall well-being and academic success. The clinic operates on an appointment basis, with some walk-in availability, and is committed to maintaining confidentiality and respect for all students.
Old Main 1890 | C.A. Randall Architect
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
Today we refresh our understanding of the standard of care for hosting elections in public spaces such as schools, colleges and universities.
In the United States, polling places can be located in a variety of public and private facilities, not just in public schools. While public schools are commonly used as polling places due to their widespread distribution and accessibility, they are not necessarily the largest proportion of polling places nationwide. The specific locations of polling places can vary by jurisdiction and are determined by local election officials. Other common polling place locations include community centers, churches, libraries, government buildings, and private residences.
The selection of polling places is based on factors like accessibility, convenience, and the need to accommodate a specific number of voters within a given precinct or district. The goal is to ensure that voters have reasonable access to cast their ballots on election day. The use of public schools as polling places is widespread but not universal, and the distribution of polling places across various types of facilities can vary from one region to another.
2024 International Building Code Appendix E: Supplementary Accessibility Requirements
NFPA 730 Guide to Premises Security: 2026 First Draft Report | Consultation closes January 3, 2025
“Election Day” 1944″ Norman Rockwell
The political party that claims that “democracy is at stake” today’s election is the same political party that seeks to federalize state election laws, pack the Supreme Court, remove the Electoral College, remove US national borders and abolish voter identification will be voting in today’s off-year elections. In other words: it wants to abolish democracy. Its partisans have long since metastasized in education communities where polling places for students, faculty, staff and nearby residents are hosted.
Join us in post-irony America today when we focus only on the safety and environmental condition of these polling places. Where there is closer agreement. Catalogs, titles, chapters, sections and passages that inform best practice on this topic:
Can Voters Detect Malicious Manipulation of Ballot Marking Devices?
International Code Council
International Building Code
A117 Accessible and Useable Buildings and Facilities
National Fire Protection Association
Premises Security
ASHRAE International
Illumination Engineering Society
Sacramento County: Polling Place and Vote Center Management
This content is accessible to paid subscribers. To view it please enter your password below or send mike@standardsmichigan.com a request for subscription details.
Can Voters Detect Malicious Manipulation of Ballot Marking Devices?
Matthew Bernhard, et. al
University of Michigan
Abstract: Ballot marking devices (BMDs) allow voters to select candidates on a computer kiosk, which prints a paper ballot that the voter can review before inserting it into a scanner to be tabulated. Unlike paperless voting machines, BMDs provide voters an opportunity to verify an auditable physical record of their choices, and a growing number of U.S. jurisdictions are adopting them for all voters. However, the security of BMDs depends on how reliably voters notice and correct any adversarially induced errors on their printed ballots. In order to measure voters’ error detection abilities, we conducted a large study (N = 241) in a realistic polling place setting using real voting machines that we modified to introduce an error into each printout. Without intervention, only 40% of participants reviewed their printed ballots at all, and only 6.6% told a poll worker something was wrong. We also find that carefully designed interventions can improve verification performance. Verbally instructing voters to review the printouts and providing a written slate of candidates for whom to vote both significantly increased review and reporting rates-although the improvements may not be large enough to provide strong security in close elections, especially when BMDs are used by all voters. Based on these findings, we make several evidence-based recommendations to help better defend BMD-based elections.
IEEE provides this article for public use without charge.
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwB pic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T
— USPTO (@uspto) July 13, 2023
Standards Michigan Group, LLC
2723 South State Street | Suite 150
Ann Arbor, MI 48104 USA
888-746-3670
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
