November 19, 2002...to Mayor Daley
Mayor Daley, New York is re-examining their building codes as a resultof the 9/11 experience. This article focuses on stored diesel fuel as contributing to the loss of a building adjacent to the World Trade Center buildings. After our Jefferson Park electrical station caused darkened downtown buildings several years ago, Chicago adopted requirements for back-up diesel generators. Now ONLY the "evacuation lighting" will use the back-up power, and we may be the only city in the world that has "altered" (Chicago's own internal comparison word) the International Electrical Code to require a generator - that the world considers the wrong back-up power source. The world considers it very risky for an entire building to be at the mercy of a dead starting battery or a single broken wire insteadof the traditional more reliable multiple back-up sources using recharagable nearby batteries. Before we have a disaster in our city, please have your staff review the reasonableness of single generators and series wiring in high-rise buildings over 300 feet. Many buildings in Chicago are now racing to meet the January 1, 2003 deadline and are wasting millions of dollars on the wrong solution of a single generator. We have been trying to get anyone in the city to listen since our May 30, 2002 Illinois Freedom of Information request. We have received a few documents from Jennifer Hoyle, but the crucial exemption documents are still missing.
Respectfully, Richard F. Ward 312-938-0884
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 20, 2002...toChicago Law Department
Jennifer Hoyle, I sent this article to Mayor Daley earlier today and mentioned the exemption documents that I am still waiting to review, in particular, the 2 or 3 commercial buildings that were granted waivers to the generator requirement. I also find it very hard to understand how there is reportedly no written documentation on the reasoning why a single generator is a more reliable back-up power source for evacuation lighting. I think the reason may be that there is no logical explanation that leads to that conclusion, which apparently is out of step with the rest of the WORLD. I believe it is your job as the frequent spokesperson for the Mayor to anticipate potentially embarrasing situations. If there is one fire in the service elevator area of a lower floor and hundreds of persons die by failing to evacuate in completely dark hallways and stairwells because a single generator failed to start or a single wire was damaged in the explosion or fire, our series of alerts that have been essentially ignored by the city will be an unexplainable problem for the city. The financial liability and political fall-out can be avoided if the Mayor exercises the leadership to direct the Electrical Commission and the Building Department to review and reconsider the reasonableness of the "altered" generator mandate. If the subcommittee of contractors that susposedly recommended the "alteration" of the International Electrical Code, are in a position to make millions in profit selling and installing those generators, the obvivous conflict-of-interest legal questions will arise. Please acknowledge the receipt of this email. It is too important to be misplaced in the email system. I am warning of these potential problems because I admire the leadership that the Mayor gives to Chicago, and that is real loyality and support. If the people that work for him are giving him what they think he wants and not the best recommendation, that is not honest, loyal, or effective support. Thank you, Richard Ward Reference: http://neweastside.org
Richard F. Ward
155 Harbor Dr. #5101, Chicago IL 60601
Fax & Home Phone: 312-938-0884
Email: neweastside@hotmail.com
Websites: http://neweastside.org
http://155harbor.org
http://vp18.homestead.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 21, 2002...FROM Chicago Law Department
From : "JENNIFER HOYLE" <LW00249@cityofchicago.org>
To : 
neweastside@hotmail.com>
neweastside@hotmail.com> Subject : re: Fwd: NYTimes.com Article: Fuel in Storage Inside Buildings Raises Concern
Date : Thu, 21 Nov 2002 09:23:04 -0600
Mr. Ward, Thanks. I did receive your e-mail. I have also forwarded a copy to the Building Department. Jennifer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 23, 2002...to Chicago Law Department
Jennifer Hoyle
City of Chicago Department of Law
It is now just a week from the January 1, 2003 deadline that buildings over 300 feet must have taken positive steps to install a single diesel generator as a back-up power source for emegency evacuation lighting. The City of Chicago has avoided furnishing any written justification for this building code amendment that is contrary to the National Electrical Code. Our Illinois Freedom of Information requests have been incompletely answered and important exemption documents are missing.
Our building managers are wasting many millions of dollars for the wrong solution to the life saving need to provide back-up power sources for evacuation lighting.
Please provide an update on your efforts to get the Building Department to respond to our 7-month-old Freedom of Information request that legally should have been answered in 7 working days.
Thank you, Richard Ward 312-939-0884
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 24, 2002...FROM Law Department
From : "JENNIFER HOYLE" <LW00249@cityofchicago.org>
"JENNIFER HOYLE" <LW00249@cityofchicago.org>To : <neweastside@hotmail.com>
<neweastside@hotmail.com> Subject : Re: STATUS OF EFFORTS WITH BLDG. DEPT.
Date : Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:08:05 -0600
Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:08:05 -0600 Attachments : arendt.wpd (5k)
arendt.wpd (5k) Dear Mr. Ward: I am responding to the e-mail you sent regarding your Freedom of Information Act request. You stated that the response was incompleteand that you are still waiting for documents.
It is true that we were not able to provide you with all of the documents you requested, but we were not able to provide you with those documents because the Building Department did not have them. I realize that this is not satisfactory, but this is not an issue that can be addressed under the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act does not require any public body to maintain or prepare a new record specifically to respond to a request.
In regard to your request for documents pertaining to waivers or exemptions regarding the generator requirement, at the time your FOIA request was submitted, at the time we responded to your request, and as recently as November 18, 2002--the last time I checked--no waivers or exemptions had been granted by the Department of Buildings. I am construing your e-mail as a new Freedom of Information request for documents pertaining to any exemptions or waivers that have been granted since we responded to your earlier request, and will forward this request to the Department of Buildings.
The only item that was denied based on an exemption in FOIA was your request for relevant sections of the National Electric Code, which was denied pursuant to 5 ILCS 140/7 (1)(a). The National Electric Code is a copyrighted document, and unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material may constitute a violation of federal and state law. It is not clear to me whether you intended your e-mail to be an appeal of that denial; however, because your e-mail did not cite any legal authority or case law that would allow us to reproduce this material, I have no choice but to uphold the previous denial.
In response to your contention that the City has avoided furnishing any written justification for this building code amendment that is contrary to the National Electrical Code, I would respond by stating that I have forwarded to you all documents that were responsive to your Freedom of Information request, with the exception of the sections of the National Electric Code. It is reasonable for you to ask why there are no additional documents regarding these matters, but that is a question that should be directed to and addressed by the Building Department.
My role in this process is to assist City departments in coordinating responses to Freedom of Information requests. To the extent that any person submitting a Freedom of Information request has questions or concerns regarding the policy decisions of a department, I must refer those questions to that department. It is clear that you disagree with the Building Department's policy decisions on this matter; however, I do not have the technical expertise or background knowledge about this matter to address your concerns or respond to your questions. The Building Department forwarded me the attached letter--I'm not sure if it was sent to you--responding to your questions. If you have any additional questions or concerns regarding this issue--outside of a Freedom of Information request for documents--I would urge you to contact the Department of Buildings.
Sincerely, Jennifer Hoyle
Freedom of Information Coordinator
Department of Law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 29, 2002 letter received December 24, 2002
arendt.wpd (Word Perfect Document) email attachment converted to text
May 29, 2002
Richard F. Ward
155 Harbor Drive #5101
Chicago, IL 60601
Subject: Letter Dated April 23, 2002
Dear Mr. Ward, I apologize for the delay in responding to your thoughtful letter. We appreciate your experience in the airline industry as it relates to emergency evacuation of airplanes. There are some similarities between emergency egress from buildings and from aircraft during disasters.
The most common need for emergency and egress illumination in buildings occurs during utility outages and during fires. The present Code addresses these more common occurrences for the various sizes and occupancy classes of buildings. Generators, battery inverters and unit battery equipment all play a roll in providing required egress illumination and exit directional signage.
Emergency Unit Battery Equipment is listed to UL 924 the standard for Emergency Lighting Equipment. In order to pass this test the unit equipment must keep a minimum lamp illumination level for 1.5 hours. Most buildings requiring emergency illumination in Chicago are allowed to have this unit equipment fulfill this requirement. High-rise buildings, with some exceptions, have a requirement for a 4 hour non-utility backup source. High-rise buildings in Chicago are constructed in a compartmentalized manner as a fire prevention and fire fighting means. Very often, during a compartmentalized fire, occupants are receiving voice instructions from the Fire Department to stay within their locations. Our experience shows that the 1.5 hour backup capacity is insufficient for most high-rise fires and utility outages. Another issue with unit equipment is the increased sustained level of maintenance required to keep the equipment functional over a long period of time. Buildings, unfortunately do not have the constant, high level of maintenance that would be required for commercial airliners. There are maintenance requirements in the Code, but compliance is difficult to enforce.
High-rise emergency system components such as source equipment, feeders and branch circuits are designed to have higher reliability due to UL listing requirements, fire resistive route for conductors and separation from other electrical systems. Our experience with these systems in hospitals, high-rise buildings and similar locations has led directly to present day requirements.
Thank you once again for sharing your experience and concerns.
Respectfully,
Timothy Arendt
City of Chicago, Chief Electrical Inspector
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 26, 2002...to Law Department
From: Richard Ward
Email To: Jennifer Hoyle, Chicago Department of Law
Copy To: Mayor Daley and Alderman Natarus
Thank you for your email response on December 24th and for the attachment of the letter dated May 29, 2002 from Mr. Arendt of the Building Department that was apparently never sent. The Building Department was aware that nothing had been received by me through numerous phone messages and written communications on July 9, 2002 and August 4, 2002. There should have been no confusion that the May 29, 2002 draft was not received by me. The May 29th draft was also apparently not shared with the Law Department either or it would have been included in your Freedom of Information response that was dated October 2, 2002 and picked-up by me on October 30th from your office.
Now that I have had an opportunity to review the May 29th draft that I received on December 24th, I believe it was apparently never mailed because it is generally unresponsive my April 15th email to Alderman Natarus (with a copy to Mayor Daley) that may have been forwarded to the Building Department. And it is also generally unresponsive to my April 23rd letter directly to the Building Department. 1.) Chicago's argument that: "Our experience shows that the 1.5 hour backup capacity is insufficient for most high-rise fires and utility outages" is not correct, in my opinion, for high-rise fires and is only applicable to Edison utility outages. Regarding the "experience" of the city, please furnish under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act any records of the Chicago Fire Department regarding high-rise fires where primary evacuation lighting power was unavailable and 90 minutes was insufficient to decide to evacuate the building? 2.) The argument that a single UL approved generator is more reliable than 150 independent UL approved battery packs is again incorrect in my opinion, considering the redundancy of the multiple battery packs. Even if 10% of the battery packs were exhausted after a few minutes, the remaining 90% would be a safer environment than a totally black stairwell resulting from a single broken wire or from a single generator starting battery. And that is true for a 7-story building as well as a 70-story building. 3.) Also the argument that "compliance is difficult to enforce" for the 6-month requirement to test the battery packs is not valid, in my opinion, because the same inspector that checks for fire extinguisher testing can also confirm that the batteries have been tested. 4.) Regarding the statement: "...higher reliability due to... fire resistive routes for conductors and separation from other electrical systems" may not be valid after our 9/11 experience because an explosion could sever the wiring in the restrictive and limited new paths that are currently being approved.
Only local batteries can prevent a totally black evacuation route and save the lives of our citizens. We must focus on the single word "altered" in Chicago's comparison to the National Electrical Code: "Consistent with NEC format, but is altered to provide specific emergency generator requirements" (emphasis added) Buildings like the old Prudential tower have voluntarily added battery back-up for their evacuation lighting for the safety of their occupants. When will Chicago amend their code to conform to minimum national and international standards for evacuation lighting back-up power?
For a problem that may have been highlighted by the poor public relations of a darkened downtown area several years ago, when the Edison Jefferson Park Station had problems, the generator solution for evacuation lighting is not the answer that conforms to national and international experience. In many buildings it is too late to reverse the new generator requirement, but the batteries are still needed for the safety of our citizens for all evacuation routes, regardless of height or length. Each step of an evacuation in a darkened and smoky hallway and stairwell is a life-safety problem.
The May 29th draft reveals that: "High-rise buildings, with some exceptions, have a requirement for a 4 hour non-utility backup source." (emphasis added) Therefore, the Law Department's October 2nd IFOIA response and the December 24th follow-up email are apparently both not accurate regarding the lack of "exceptions", or more specifically "waivers or exemptions." In my IFOIA letter of May 30th, I requested under #6 "Copies of approved exceptions". If I used an unclear or confusing word such as "exceptions", there should have been an attempt by the City to request a clarification of my request for information.
After several requests, I have been unable to obtain the email address of your Chief Electrical Inspector, Mr. Arendt, so please forward this email to the Building Department and/or the Fire Department for their possible reply to issues where they have the technical knowledge. Because many buildings and organizations are being affected by the apparently unique Chicago generator code requirement (that differs from the National Electrical Code), this series of communications on this issue are being made available on the website page: http://NewEastsideForum.homestead.com/EvacuationLighting.html
Jennifer, you have been the most helpful person in our efforts to gain an understanding of the reasoning for the nearly half-million dollar expenditure in most buildings. I very much appreciate your efforts, and fully understand that you are responsible only for the legal requirements under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act.
I live on the 51st floor of my residential high-rise building and am trying to personally insure that evacuation lighting will be available for my family and neighbors if a fire or explosion eliminates the primary and secondary utility source AND if the new single generator does not start or there is a single break in the long wiring. I have a much lower concern for the simple inconvenience of both a temporary primary and secondary utility outage. The memories of the long-time residents can recall only one short utility outage since our building was built in 1974.
Thank you for your help. Hopefully you are having a joyous Holiday Season and the citizens of our great city will experience a peaceful New Year.
Sincerely, Richard Ward
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
