High-Rise Owners, Residents Fight Proposed State Rule For Sprinklers

 

CHICAGO (CBS) – Residents and owners of older high rises in Chicago were racing against the clock to fight a proposed state mandate that they say would force many residents to move.

WBBM Newsradio’s Lisa Fielding reports some said sprinklers are necessary to save lives and property in Chicago’s oldest tall buildings, but others said there have to be less costly options that are just as effective.

“If we have to retrofit sprinklers in our building, we’d be looking at a bill just for the work of around $9 million, which broken down would be enough to cause many people in my building – who are on fixed incomes and probably myself – to say we can’t afford $40,000, $50,000 in special assessments, said Allen Lipscher, president of Waterford Condominium Association on Lake Shore Drive.

High-Rises Fighting Sprinkler RuleWBBM Newsradio's Lisa Fielding

Lipscher and hundreds of high rise condo owners have been fighting a proposed rule by the Illinois State Fire Marshal that imposes retrofitting requirements for high-rise buildings built before 1975.

Lipscher said the cost would be ruinous for many homeowners.

“This would be a giant project. We are a poured-concrete building. That would entail bringing in standpipes, drilling holes through the floor to bring in the main pipes,” he said. “We would have to have pipes run the center of our hallways hanging from our ceilings exposed. Over each door they would drill through the wall, and bring into your whole house and it won’t look pretty as a retrofit.”

“We just think to spend $9 million, especially when we’ve already spent money on all the other things, it’s something we can’t afford. If this law passes, many of us will have to sell and move,” he added.

It started in 2003, when a fire took the lives of six people trapped in a stairwell at the Cook County Administration Building at 69 W. Washington St.

In an effort to prevent further high-rise fire deaths, the City Council enacted the life-safety ordinance, which required all pre-1975 buildings 80 feet and higher to submit a professionally-prepared evaluation and to implement certain safety features by Jan. 1, 2012.

By late 2011, half of the residential high-rises had not submitted reports, much less implemented the safety features, so the City Council gave them more time, to Jan. 1, 2015.
Chicago’s ordinance gives high-rises a choice: retrofit for sprinklers or install alternative safety features, such as fire-resistant stairwell doors and frames, and one- and two-way voice communication systems.

Virtually none of the owners have opted for sprinklers.

Lipscher said The Waterford has already implemented much of the city’s Life Safety and High Rise Ordinance, and other safety measures as required.

“It’s a continuing process. We have fire people coming in all the time to make sure lights and fire stairs and doors are working. We will have elevators that have automatic recall, an enunciator system, fire doors in the trash chutes and many other safety improvements,” he said. “Now the addition of sprinkler systems is too much. The city is happy with what we are doing and with the progress we’ve made. They are watching it closely and at the end of 2014, all the buildings will be done and now this got thrown into the mix. The City doesn’t know what to do either.”

Lipscher urged building owners to write letters to the state’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which will take up the proposal on Aug. 12.

Currently, Chicago requires sprinklers only in new residential high-rises. Many condominium associations and the Illinois Association of Realtors have come out against this new mandate for older buildings.

View the original article here

High-Rise Owners, Residents Fight Proposed State Rule For Sprinklers

 

CHICAGO (CBS) – Residents and owners of older high rises in Chicago were racing against the clock to fight a proposed state mandate that they say would force many residents to move.

WBBM Newsradio’s Lisa Fielding reports some said sprinklers are necessary to save lives and property in Chicago’s oldest tall buildings, but others said there have to be less costly options that are just as effective.

“If we have to retrofit sprinklers in our building, we’d be looking at a bill just for the work of around $9 million, which broken down would be enough to cause many people in my building – who are on fixed incomes and probably myself – to say we can’t afford $40,000, $50,000 in special assessments, said Allen Lipscher, president of Waterford Condominium Association on Lake Shore Drive.

High-Rises Fighting Sprinkler RuleWBBM Newsradio's Lisa Fielding

Lipscher and hundreds of high rise condo owners have been fighting a proposed rule by the Illinois State Fire Marshal that imposes retrofitting requirements for high-rise buildings built before 1975.

Lipscher said the cost would be ruinous for many homeowners.

“This would be a giant project. We are a poured-concrete building. That would entail bringing in standpipes, drilling holes through the floor to bring in the main pipes,” he said. “We would have to have pipes run the center of our hallways hanging from our ceilings exposed. Over each door they would drill through the wall, and bring into your whole house and it won’t look pretty as a retrofit.”

“We just think to spend $9 million, especially when we’ve already spent money on all the other things, it’s something we can’t afford. If this law passes, many of us will have to sell and move,” he added.

It started in 2003, when a fire took the lives of six people trapped in a stairwell at the Cook County Administration Building at 69 W. Washington St.

In an effort to prevent further high-rise fire deaths, the City Council enacted the life-safety ordinance, which required all pre-1975 buildings 80 feet and higher to submit a professionally-prepared evaluation and to implement certain safety features by Jan. 1, 2012.

By late 2011, half of the residential high-rises had not submitted reports, much less implemented the safety features, so the City Council gave them more time, to Jan. 1, 2015.
Chicago’s ordinance gives high-rises a choice: retrofit for sprinklers or install alternative safety features, such as fire-resistant stairwell doors and frames, and one- and two-way voice communication systems.

Virtually none of the owners have opted for sprinklers.

Lipscher said The Waterford has already implemented much of the city’s Life Safety and High Rise Ordinance, and other safety measures as required.

“It’s a continuing process. We have fire people coming in all the time to make sure lights and fire stairs and doors are working. We will have elevators that have automatic recall, an enunciator system, fire doors in the trash chutes and many other safety improvements,” he said. “Now the addition of sprinkler systems is too much. The city is happy with what we are doing and with the progress we’ve made. They are watching it closely and at the end of 2014, all the buildings will be done and now this got thrown into the mix. The City doesn’t know what to do either.”

Lipscher urged building owners to write letters to the state’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which will take up the proposal on Aug. 12.

Currently, Chicago requires sprinklers only in new residential high-rises. Many condominium associations and the Illinois Association of Realtors have come out against this new mandate for older buildings.

View the original article here

High-Rise Owners, Residents Fight Proposed State Rule For Sprinklers

 

CHICAGO (CBS) – Residents and owners of older high rises in Chicago were racing against the clock to fight a proposed state mandate that they say would force many residents to move.

WBBM Newsradio’s Lisa Fielding reports some said sprinklers are necessary to save lives and property in Chicago’s oldest tall buildings, but others said there have to be less costly options that are just as effective.

“If we have to retrofit sprinklers in our building, we’d be looking at a bill just for the work of around $9 million, which broken down would be enough to cause many people in my building – who are on fixed incomes and probably myself – to say we can’t afford $40,000, $50,000 in special assessments, said Allen Lipscher, president of Waterford Condominium Association on Lake Shore Drive.

High-Rises Fighting Sprinkler RuleWBBM Newsradio's Lisa Fielding

Lipscher and hundreds of high rise condo owners have been fighting a proposed rule by the Illinois State Fire Marshal that imposes retrofitting requirements for high-rise buildings built before 1975.

Lipscher said the cost would be ruinous for many homeowners.

“This would be a giant project. We are a poured-concrete building. That would entail bringing in standpipes, drilling holes through the floor to bring in the main pipes,” he said. “We would have to have pipes run the center of our hallways hanging from our ceilings exposed. Over each door they would drill through the wall, and bring into your whole house and it won’t look pretty as a retrofit.”

“We just think to spend $9 million, especially when we’ve already spent money on all the other things, it’s something we can’t afford. If this law passes, many of us will have to sell and move,” he added.

It started in 2003, when a fire took the lives of six people trapped in a stairwell at the Cook County Administration Building at 69 W. Washington St.

In an effort to prevent further high-rise fire deaths, the City Council enacted the life-safety ordinance, which required all pre-1975 buildings 80 feet and higher to submit a professionally-prepared evaluation and to implement certain safety features by Jan. 1, 2012.

By late 2011, half of the residential high-rises had not submitted reports, much less implemented the safety features, so the City Council gave them more time, to Jan. 1, 2015.
Chicago’s ordinance gives high-rises a choice: retrofit for sprinklers or install alternative safety features, such as fire-resistant stairwell doors and frames, and one- and two-way voice communication systems.

Virtually none of the owners have opted for sprinklers.

Lipscher said The Waterford has already implemented much of the city’s Life Safety and High Rise Ordinance, and other safety measures as required.

“It’s a continuing process. We have fire people coming in all the time to make sure lights and fire stairs and doors are working. We will have elevators that have automatic recall, an enunciator system, fire doors in the trash chutes and many other safety improvements,” he said. “Now the addition of sprinkler systems is too much. The city is happy with what we are doing and with the progress we’ve made. They are watching it closely and at the end of 2014, all the buildings will be done and now this got thrown into the mix. The City doesn’t know what to do either.”

Lipscher urged building owners to write letters to the state’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, which will take up the proposal on Aug. 12.

View the original article here

VA Releases Draft Report on Current State of Gulf War Veterans' Health

Today the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) released a draft report from the Gulf War Veterans' Illness Task Force on the current state of Gulf War Veterans' health in the hopes to gather public opinion and comments in an on-going effort to improve the quality of medical care and types of medical services offered. Further, the draft report calls for an improvement in addressing the medical needs of Gulf War Veterans with “multi-symptom” illnesses and expanding the scope of clinical studies.

Created to address the growing and specific health concerns of those veterans who served in the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991, the Gulf War Veterans' Illness Task Force has offered directives to the VA on behalf of these veterans. At the crux of the mission of the Task Force is to ensure that Gulf War Veterans' health ever-changing health needs are met with support and care by the VA.

Due to the unique nature of the Gulf War, many of those who served face severe, oftentimes debilitating, medical conditions other veterans who served in different wars and regions do not face.

In particular, Gulf War Veterans were exposed to a variety of environmental toxins, including asbestos. During the fires in Kuwait and other locations, many older buildings were burned that contained asbestos. Though the asbestos exposure was immediate, the development of symptoms related to that exposure takes many years, upwards of decades in some cases.

Among the medical conditions caused by asbestos exposure is mesothelioma, a form of cancer that can affect the protective lining of the lungs. Though asbestos exposure and the later development of mesothelioma in veterans is not uncommon – particularly for those who served in Navy shipyards – Gulf War Veterans are at a particular health risk.

In the draft report, the Task Force outlined key areas to improve the administration of health services to Gulf War Veterans. These areas include improving open communications with Gulf War Veterans, improving point of care services for chronic multi-symptom illness and delivering veteran benefits.

Learning from the unique experiences of the Gulf War Veterans and their subsequent health challenges is also a significant mission of the Task Force. Ultimately, the VA will learn from the Gulf War to be better prepared for how environmental toxins and its physical affects factor into future wars.

The draft report is available for viewing at the Federal Register and will be made available for comments for thirty days.

View the original article here

Washington State Supreme Court Victory for Asbestos Victims

This month, Seattle law firm Bergman Draper Ladenburg won an important victory for victims of asbestos exposure. By a 4-1 vote, Washington State’s high court overruled an appellate court’s ruling that the manufacturer of respirators designed to be worn by asbestos workers could not be held liable for failing to warn other workers who may have come in contact with dangerous asbestos fibers carried on the respirators.

In Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings Inc. the plaintiff worked as a tool keeper in a shipyard, from 1978 to 2004. As part of his regular employment duties he cleaned respirators worn by other workers, including those who worked with asbestos.  In 2008 he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer caused by the asbestos fibers he inhaled while cleaning and handling respirators.

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen found that earlier cases limiting liability for products not in the chain of asbestos distribution did not apply in this case, because the express purpose of the respirators was to filter out hazardous airborne contaminants, such as asbestos.  “Filtering out such contaminants, including asbestos, is the exact reason that the respirators were used; removing asbestos and other contaminants was the very function for which the respirators were intended.”

Earlier precedents cited by the appellate court did not apply, said Madsen, because “in Simonetta and Braaten, the manufacturers did not manufacture products that inherently involved the danger of exposure to asbestos. Here, the respirator manufacturers manufactured products that inherently involved the danger of exposure to asbestos when the products were used exactly as intended and for the purpose for which they were intended.”

The defense’s reliance on Simonetta and Braaten went too far, said Matthew Bergman, founding partner of Bergman Draper Ladenburg. “What the defendants interpreted those cases as saying is that, unless the manufacturer actually made the asbestos, no liability can be imposed in any circumstances.”

Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings brings clarity to asbestos liability suits in Washington State. It contradicts a recent California Supreme Court case which relied in part on Washington’s appellate court ruling in Macias, to find that a sailor’s mesothelioma was not the fault of a valve manufacturer whose products were often lined with asbestos.

Matthew Bergman described the court’s finding as a return to principles of basic tort law. “The analysis goes back to basic tort principles — which is if you design a product that is intended to be used with asbestos or some other harmful substance, even if you didn’t make the harmful substance, you have a duty to exercise reasonable care as a manufacturer.

 

View the original article here