Real Estate Industry Comments on EPA Guidance, March 2002

NYC 9/11 Public Portal Document

Ms. Elissa Feldman March 25, 2002 Page 3

Issue: Determining the Primary/Priority Audience for the Guidance

Upon reviewing the Guidance a number of real estate companies and trade associations were concerned about the decision of the Workgroup to effectively “punt” on the issue of risk assessments. As you know, the draft attaches a non-exclusive list of organizations that can help the reader obtain “insight into .. .building risk assessment”. Perhaps, this approach reflects limits on the availability to the Workgroup of relevant expertise or simply the difficulty in achieving consensus on any “objective” criteria for a generally applicable risk-assessment protocol. Nonetheless, many comments suggested the absence of some sort of common-sense filter for businesses to use in determining the relevance of many of the Workgroup’s recommendations will unintentionally marginalize the guidance. By seeking too broad an audience the Guidance may lose credibility. In the end, to reach an audience beyond owners of large “trophy” buildings or owners of properties housing particularly sensitive occupants (e.g., media, government, military, or politically symbolic organizations), the more detailed guidance developed by the Workgroup will need to tailor its recommendations for lower risk buildings. For now, the Guidance could acknowledge that use of the document may differ for owners whose risk assessment — or the exercise of common sense — suggests the building is at very low risk for an “attack”. In that case, perhaps, apart from provisions such as those included in the “Know Your Building” and “Physical Security” sections, much of the rest of the document may be of general rather than specific interest.

At the same time, it should be noted that one major retail owner’s security expert pointed out the document would have broad applicability for retail property owners if used as a self-evaluation tool. The owner representative stated “I believe this document provides a tool that can be used to effectively evaluate any [retail] property, regardless of design or age.” The commenter went on to say: I still have concerns about creating “standards” that the industry has no reasonable ability to meet, consequently creating unfair or negative public perceptions relative to the security of our properties. That said, if this document is used as it appears to be intended, to provide a roadmap for self-evaluation, it accomplishes that goal very nicely. Issue: New Construction versus Retrofits; Different Occupancy Types The Workgroup has recommended that, in the future, “comprehensive guidance” is necessary to address the qualitatively different set of implementation challenges associated with existing versus new buildings. We are pleased that the Workgroup appears to understand the importance of this issue. Inevitably, perhaps, this initial guidance sometimes gives short shrift to that very practical difference and we ask that you be as sensitive as possible to the new building versus retrofit distinction. Some additional or more pronounced acknowledgement of this important consideration would be appropriate, especially when it comes to major issues like relocation of air intakes or isolation of mail rooms. Certainly, the blanket statement in the Conclusion (p. 12) that the “recommendations are applicable to both new and existing buildings” needs to be deleted or revised to indicate that “some” or “many” recommendations “may” be applicable to both types of buildings.

NYC-WTC_000143748