jeff posted on January 29, 2010 01:17
Business Continuity professionals may be alarmed at the following assumptions but the reality is that very few will have assessed the devastating or potential disruption, liability or health issues identified in this article.
Asbestos is the single biggest cause of industry related death in the UK with over 3,500 deaths per annum. Those at most risk are IT and maintenance personnel who drill or cut holes around buildings, usually working in unfamiliar areas and unaware of building components. The result is that they may be exposing themselves and others to asbestos from which even limited exposure can kill.
See http://www.hse.gov.uk/campaigns/asbestos/index.htm
The implications will make almost all disaster recovery plans obsolete with far reaching ramifications to business continuity and company survival together with the potential for long tail employee personal injury claims. To assess these ramifications it is essential to understand or at least recognise the legal implications and the Governments stated and newly initiated hard line on workplace safety.
In nearly 20 years of working as a disaster recovery contractor /consultant I have never, ever had a health and safety professional, or a safety file, asbestos register waiting for me when attending a disaster scene. When I ask what hazards may be present and in particular asbestos, the stock answer has always been, “My building doesn’t have asbestos, never did or we had it all removed years ago.” but the reality is this statement is probably unsubstantiated, made with evidence, which cannot be relied upon and requires new assessments or is simply wrong.
The HSE and the law are not interested in opinions but deal in substantiated fact. Certificated removal by licensed asbestos contractors and clearance certification by independent laboratories just a few years ago may be thought of as substantiated evidence, but the reality is that today’s clearance certification and requirements are poles apart from what was historically accepted. The fact is asbestos was only banned from use in the UK in November 1999 and it can and indeed must now be presumed to be present in almost all building materials and some contents, even the site of previous removal is now recognised as a potential risk due to historic low levels of removal competence and clearance criteria.
The H&SW health and safety at work act 1974 was introduced to cover all aspects of the workplace safety but the government decided to add the management regulations MHSW 1999 to ensure a proactive approach. http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hsc13.pdf
As criminal laws this legislation should ensure compliance as CEOs and duty holders are exposed to criminal conviction and unlimited fines for failure to comply. It was then a surprise to some that the government identified asbestos as a separate hazard in the workplace and introduced more stringent legislation in the form of the CAWR control of asbestos at work regs 2002.
www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20022675.htm
This legislation requires only licensed asbestos contractors to undertake work with asbestos products or materials, again as criminal law with substantive penalties the workplace was or should have been seen as safe.
In May 2004 regulation 4 of the CAWR was introduced. In this the employer, leaseholder or recognised duty holder is required to assess the presence, condition, and likely exposure to asbestos. See http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2003/e03026.htm
Many interpreted this legislation as a duty to survey the property only but the reality is that the information requires auditable procedures and actions to manage the asbestos hazard , which must be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Asbestos and survey information can be found on www.disasteradvice.co.uk/
Almost all companies see the responsibility of surveys as that of the facility manager or equivalent, few if any see it as the responsibility of a Business Continuity or disaster recovery planner, but in an emergency it is these very people that will most likely have the responsibility of Triage and recovery. Following a disaster, which apart from explosion, fire, flood may include maintenance work that goes wrong, asbestos may be released. The most significant part of regulation 4 is that asbestos must be presumed where documented or substantiated evidence is not available.
Example 1 :
A maintenance worker removes a partition wall to allow the passage of a IT cable. He sees what he thinks may be asbestos and from his disruptive work believes asbestos fibres have been released and these have been sucked into the extract air system to be re-circulted through the supply system, note fibers would not be stopped by normal ventilation filtration. The health risk is obviouse and the building must be evacuated. I have seen this occur on sevearal occasisons. Most signiificantly in one building, I informed the multiple tennancy and building manager of the potential risk. The CEO of one company thought this was an act of extreme incompetence and called the HSE Health & Safety Executive to investigate. The HSE officer arrived within hours and asked why the CEO had not evacuated the building as advised. He was charged with offences under the HSW 1974 act for failing to protect his employees and the building mangement team were vindicated as testing proved a false alarm.
Example 2 :
A water supply pipe failed at a compression joint feeding the water tank on the top floor. The water flooded down and across the building bringing down suspended ceilings. The ceiling tiles, insualtion and fire breaks were asbestos and contamination was found throughout the flood area. As no record was available all had to be assessed as asbestos and strict surveilance ensued to monitor the possible release of asbestos fiber as the areas dried. The result the building was closed when asbestos was confirmed.
Example 3 :
The building was affected by a fire to localised areas. Walls were damaged and internal components exposed. The disaster recovery team were forbiden entry to the building as no asbestos records were available due to the limitations of a type 2 survey. A full asbestos survey had to be undertaken with documeted laboratory results before entry was allowed and this delayed the recovery by days and caused preventable secondary damage.
The significance of these three examples is that it shows the limitations of the various and most common types of asbestos surveys.
Another point of posibly more significance is the duty to manage asbestos in the building. While many believe the survey is the most important facet of regulation 4, the reality is that management systems can have far reaching ramifications. The management of asbestos in a building must be seen as a continual process which includes assessments, procedures management and most importantly the recording the actions and findings. This could simply be seen as an audit trail, which may, be inspected by the HSE auditors at any point in the near or distant future. As the exposure to asbestos can result in death upto 40 years after the intial exposure, it becomes most likely that audits can be as far away as 40 years.
Economical compliance is possible with the use of dynamic management software. It is essential that surveys are dynamic as static documents require continual manual updates and re-wrting. Dynmaic record and management systems update automatically as data is added and therefor provides accurate information on which emergency decissions can be made.
Although possibly not on your watch, implications should be considered regarding the potential of long term employee and personal injury claims, insurance premiums and this latter factor may indeed be a driving force in the cost of future premiums and your compliance to CAWR regulation 4. The potential for protracted and expensive survey inspections following the termination of lease to comply with “Insure & maintain” contracts will also have ramifications. These issues coupled to the threat of post disaster disruption and indeed the potential for criminal liability, and unlimited fines should focus the duty holders attention.