Owners new focus on LL26 Emergency Action Plan.

The September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) Twin Towers were a national tragedy that had an enormous impact on New York City.

Before 9/11, New York City was thought to have one of the most stringent building codes in the United States. The aftermath of these attacks caused many revisions to building codes in relation to high-rise building safety. The lessons learned from the 9/11 tragedy had a practical application for improvements to codes.

The New York City Department of Buildings formed a World Trade Center Building Code Task Force which reviewed many aspects of construction and operating requirements for high rise office buildings and determined that modifications were needed to enhance public safety. These modifications while needed are viewed by some to be complicated and costly.

The majority of improvements made law are now components of Local Law 26 of 2004 designed to serve public safety. According to the NYC DOB these new laws are "realistic and practicable."

Many owners and managers conversely view the changes as "nuisance laws" that do little to improve safety, are costly and in some cases impossible to abide by. Irrespective of what your view is on these new rules, building owners must comply with these new directives or expect to be cited.

As an example, the penalties for noncompliance with the requirements for Photoluminescent Egress guidance systems by July 1, 2006 are as follows:

For building owners that do not file their affidavits of compliance by 07/ 01/06 will receive DOB violations for non-filing of the report. If / when a DOB inspector makes a site visit and witnesses that the work was not completed or that the work was improperly installed, the inspector will issue a violation with penalties for noncompliance beginning as low as $500 or up to $5,000 for the first violation, and go up from there for subsequent inspection, as per the stepped-up penalties of Local Law 26 of 2004.

By now, as a property owner you likely know that Local Law 26 of 2004 mandates the retroactive installation of photoluminescent signs and markings in high rise office buildings on or before the deadline of July 1, 2006.

The required photo luminescent low mounted egress markings make emergency evacuations run more efficiently and help to provide safe evacuation in emergency situation such as power outages, fire and resulting smoke conditions. Studies have proven that the safety of people in a high-rise building relies on clear evacuation plans and site preparation, including clear marking of all egress routes. Safety experts agree that photoluminescent signs and markers provide clear directions for egress, in lighted conditions or in complete darkness. The PL signs require modest financial investment and minimal maintenance. Class E Building Owners are required to self certify or have a registered architect or engineer certify their compliance and submit affidavits of completion to the DOB by 07/01/ 06.

The newest provision of LL26 has just been finalized and formally goes into effect on April 6, 2006. All commercial high-rise building of six stories (75 feet) or more are now required to create and maintain a comprehensive Emergency Action Plan (EAP).

Compliance dates vary based upon building height or designation as a landmark. Buildings so designated or having over 40 floors must be in compliance by August 31, 2006. Buildings having more than 26 floors by October 31 and the remainder must comply by December 31.

The EAP requirements in the final version is different is several ways from the originally promulgated one. Most of the changes are favorable to the real estate community and remove some of the unreasonable burdens that would have been imposed absent those changes. One such change is the elimination of the need to have an additional tone in the Class E system. That requirement is no longer in the final version and certainly removes one expensive and unnecessary task for building owners and managers.

Also absent from the final version is the need to allow for ten square feet per person while selecting In-Building Relocation areas. That requirement was deemed unnecessary and the ten square feet per person requirement determined to be arbitrary. Building EAP's will still be required to identify in-building relocation areas but the occupancy levels of those areas are to be determined by the building. This is a welcome development, as many buildings, particularly those with high levels of occupancy, simply did not have enough space to use for relocation purposes. The elimination of the occupant to size requirement should enable every building to identify appropriate areas for such purposes.

Perhaps the most significant and positive change from the standpoint of the building owner/manager is the fact that buildings are no longer directly responsible for the accounting of tenants during an evacuation or in-building relocation. In the originally promulgated version of the statute, the building owner would have been required to account for each and every occupant of his or her building during an EAP implementation.

Had this provision remained it would have created a legal mandate for the building staff to try and accomplish something that is, in fact, an impossibility. The final version recognized that fact and now requires the individual tenant employers to account for the occupants of their space (employees, visitors and guests) and to then communicate the results of that accounting to the building's staff.

While there are more positive changes in the law we have to comply with there are also numerous challenges in the task itself.

The FDNY has included a template of the format they wish the EAP to follow. However, there is a surprising lack of direction to building owners as to what protocols to include within the format.

For example, the EAP must include, among many other things, a section detailing the procedures for sheltering building occupants in place. Buildings must include details of how they will handle issues such as the operation of the HVAC system, windows that may be opened and all other building operations.

What is lacking is clear direction as to what steps should be taken despite the fact that such measures are well established and known to competent security consultants.

These omissions argue persuasively for the use of highly qualified security and planning consultants with a background in law enforcement and anti-terrorism while creating a comprehensive and effective EAP.

There are many new revisions to the high-rise building codes which will soon be formalized as laws, safety experts continue to analyze what makes sense and what is feasible. Building owners must prepare to accept numerous modifications to existing laws and realize the laws applied will likely extend into other occupancies groups to improve all buildings safety irrespective of their zoning classification.

Whether an existing or new building, these revised codes will necessitate significant investments in assorted life safety systems, equipment and formal safety plans. These changes can profoundly impact property owners, property managers, life / fire safety and security officers responsible for such issues. The persons responsible for the safety of their building's occupants need to know which new codes apply to their building and what is necessary to be code-compliant.

It is critical to be proactive in conducting property and hazard risk assessments and to seek expert advice from hired consultants.

Outside consultants can help owners to make informed decisions about the measures needed to be code-compliant as well as the costs associated with compliance.

Hyline Saftey Compnay / Global Security Goup is dedicated to providing building owners with compliance solutions to improve safety in their buildings.

EVAN LIPSTEIN,

HYLINE SAFTEY COMPANY