jeff posted on January 29, 2010 02:43
If we used imaginary hindsight to undertake a post mortem of a future CBRNe terrorist event or serious pandemic We suspect the press, public and employees relatives would say “Who is responsible & who will face corporate manslaughter charges” Employers defence would likely be “We didn’t expect this severity and lessons will be learnt”.
Corporate actions to protect employees and visitors are well covered by legislation and that duty extends to assessing the hazards and risks of CBRNe terrorism and even pandemic. With both UK & US governments proclaiming that Bird Flu and terrorism will be with us for two generations the risk is high. This is emphasised by UK security agency Mi5 showing the current threat as “Severe” just below the highest warning of “Imminent”. We can expect a terrorist CBRNe event or start of a pandemic today. We should have already established defensive actions but they are seen by many as an unnecessary added expense usually because of the need for expert advice. The following shows why defence should not be expensive and why common sense should be utilised.
Business Continuity management planning is seen by most companies as an unnecessary expense too and invariably only the largest companies or those compelled by legislation have it. The BCM industry is often driven by consultants who have undertaken a short course in terminology and quote the benefits that 80% of companies that have a disaster without a plan fail within 2 years. The reality is that most companies fail within 2 years with or without a plan. They will quote the Manchester explosions , the Credit crunch but never the toxic cloud from Buncefield which hovered over London or 911 and the spread of asbestos, silica, pcb contamination throughout New York.
Unfortunately the same smoke and mirrors exist in the pandemic planning counter terrorism and CBRN defence industry. The hierarchy found in the armed forces results in a belief that ex military personnel have the best knowledge on CBRNe defence because they used WMDs on a daily basis. Several fallacies exist here, the first is that military personnel are expendable and their protection only supports them until they can be replaced, the second is that none have actually fought and survived in a CBRN battle event, important when considering PPE leakage, almost non have the knowledge of building forensics, interstitial air movement, thermal and hydrodynamics, and non have decontaminated a building. All have relied upon well trained colleagues who believe they are well equipped and have strict discipline to manage colleagues, the public however have no training, no PPE no belief or confidence except in Blue light responders who won’t be there in a wide area event. The final obstacle in defence is the law; the very same legislation that dictates you undertake risk and hazard assessments actually prevents you from taking action. Imagine terrorists released a CBR toxic chemical and it was coming your way, you should now undertake a suitable risk and hazard assessment to identify which PPE you should issue or course of action required. Of course you would have no idea what type of substance it was and more importantly what its characteristics were. Government agencies would avoid giving information because there could be two separate release events with differing characteristics and they could be held liable if they gave the wrong guidance.
There is now an urgent need for a much forgotten “common sense approach”. I am currently part of a small panel of experts in an EEC initiative in Brussels where new standards are being drawn to protect 600 million citizens in Europe. The current focus (subject to agreement and acceptance) is that of self help and where the first responder are not blue light emergency services but the victim and local aid is seen as security officers and facility managers.
It can easily be recognised that Emergency Services could never have the adequate resources available at a moments notice to protect or assist the thousands of people potentially trapped in a “Hot Zone”. The committee is also developing new PPE standards following “Gap analysis” in current EU legislation which prevents the issues of life saving PPE to untrained public.
The defence of buildings and protection of occupants to a reasonable level does not necessarily need expensive equipment but can be achieved by the utilisation or adaptation of installed engineering controls focusing on a “Safe Haven” A little common sense with the input from site engineers and training can provide a very workable defence system which can be used for pandemic and CBRNe events.
Shelter in place is now the overarching response to any CBRNe event and building defence and occupant protection must be seen as a priority, with safe travel techniques developed for times of eventual evacuation or journeys to and from work during pandemic events.
Practical and workable are two words that should be added to the terms of suitable and proportionate when planning for pandemic. Invariably the plans are unworkable and costly with absolutely no chance of working. Most plans identify the use of anti virals such as Tamiflu but fail to recognise that these prophylaxis drug treatments should be taken before exposure to the virus which means today? The supplies should take into account the need to protect workers family and friends too for obvious reasons. The supplies and resources should recognise that H5N1 pandemic is expected to last 15 months over three waves so adequate tonnage of pills should be stored where armed thieves can’t get to them. Of course even the manufacturers state that at best anti virals won’t work and that they may reduce the illness term by one day because the H5N1 strain has yet to materialise before a true anti viral can be developed.
Masks are another waste of money as they have been shown to provide absolutely no protection at all according the Centre of Disease control. Masks and respirators leak and only hoods are likely to provide any protection at all due to known leakage factors. A fact the supported by the CDC who recommend masks should only be used by those infected in an attempt to reduce airborne infection.
Working from home also assumes that the internet will be able to sustain band width and remain operational. Making a successful mobile phone call at New Years Eve or at the scene of a major emergency reflects the probable shortfalls in IT systems and alternatives should be recognised.
The interesting point in the majority of Cat 1 & 2 responders plans is the belief that personnel or employees will actually turn up for work when faced with a disease that currently has a 86% mortality rate. Of course that percentage is expected to drop to 6% but will families allow the responder out or back? Will they want to go to work when the eventually realise their current protection plans won’t work?
The majority of plan audits I have undertaken have revealed the awful truth that little or no resilience is actually likely or possible in the event of CBRN event or pandemic. Training and a common sense approach should replace cheque books and established logic in the face of these emerging and new threats and vulnerabilities.