Applying IT strategy to protecting people

[Guest guest]

Applying IT strategy to protecting people

Continuity Central (press release) - Huddersfield,UK

http://www.continuitycentral.com/feature0631.html

On a day-to-day level communicable diseases can have a significant

impact on operations. In a pandemic outbreak the impact will be a

real threat to business continuity. In this article Hillary Spicer

explains how similar thinking to IT system protection can be used to

reduce building occupants' exposure to communicable diseases.

External (and internal) threats to IT systems are well recognised by

risk management professionals and chief information officers.

Extensive resources are devoted to dealing with such threats.

Firewalls and sophisticated software to detect and prevent viruses,

spyware, malware, Trojans and intrusion are inevitably used. A great

deal of effort is devoted to implementing policies which will

minimise the risk to companies' critical systems from being

compromised. We do this because we recognise the potentially

crippling effect of compromised IT systems.

Real versus metaphoric viruses

There are external and internal threats which compromise another of

our assets; our people - and their health, motivation, productivity

and absenteeism. What's more, in real but extreme circumstances,

they threaten our employees' ability to continue business operations.

In this instance, we are not talking about metaphoric computer

viruses but the real thing – real viruses and other harmful

biological organisms. These already impact business operations and

performance but this impact is largely invisible because it is not

tracked and no one is accountable for addressing the problem. In the

current scenario, the impact is `merely' debilitating and is largely

a business operations matter, but in the not-too-distant future it

could well become a business continuity and risk management threat.

An illustration

Have you ever been on a plane trip and caught a cold or worse? It is

generally accepted that you have a 20 percent chance of catching an

infection on a plane, with the primary culprit being the aircraft's

air conditioning and heating system, which re-circulates the cabin

air. To illustrate this point, airlines have stopped serving nuts in

the aircraft cabin because it was discovered that microscopic nut

particles were finding their way into the air conditioning system,

thus re-circulating them to all passengers. Doesn't sound a problem

for most but if you are allergic to nuts and prone to anaphylactic

shock, it can be a fatal issue.

This principle holds in a large commercial office. The air handling

system, which is used to heat and cool air, re-circulates up to 90

percent of the air in the building, with pressure to re-circulate

more and more internal air in order to save energy costs. Some

building engineers do install carbon dioxide (CO2) meters in order

to make sure that the CO2 level is not high enough to impact the

health of inhabitants. Other than this, there is limited

understanding of the impact on employee health and performance.

How many times have you heard people say that an infection " swept

through the office " ? Employees exacerbate this problem because it

is considered admirable to come to work when sick. This behaviour

may reflect a personal sacrifice and an admirable personal trait,

but when you consider the propensity for that sickness to spread

throughout the office, it is in reality counter-productive.

The office building's " Internet " for spreading viruses

The standard office system for handling the circulation (and re-

circulation) and treatment of air is ideal for transmitting viruses,

bacteria and other harmful organisms to everyone in the company. It

is also ideal for cultivating, multiplying and then distributing

some of these harmful organisms. Moisture condenses on the heat

exchange coils of air conditioning units. Bacteria and spores

passing through the system adhere to the internal surfaces. The dark

moist environment is ideal for cultivation of the organisms, some of

which can then be released in greater quantities into the re-

circulating air.

This was recognised by The Brooking Institute which, after 9/11, was

asked to identify potential terrorist targets for US Homeland

Security. They concluded that the air intake systems of most

buildings are " an Achilles' heel for this nation " . They recognised

that the building's a/c and ducts are very effective highways for

delivering harmful organisms to thousands of individuals.

Cultivating organisms on the heat exchange coils

Below is a photograph of a contact plate which had been pressed

against the biofilm on the heat exchange coils in an office building

air handling system. The contact plate contains a medium which is

designed to culture bio-organisms and is commonly used to detect the

presence and type of bacteria and mould spores. This photograph was

taken after 7 days.

So, we have inadvertently created a very efficient distribution

system for infectious diseases and for materials (including mould

spores) which cause illness due to asthma and allergic reactions.

This carries a significant cost (see the section at the end of the

article on this hidden cost) but may not be considered a `risk

management' issue in the sense of interrupting business continuity.

However, we are all aware of the potential risks (both to life and

to business continuity) associated with pandemics or bioterror

attacks. This same air distribution system would be equally

efficient in spreading the pandemic or bioterror organisms –

ensuring that (almost) all employees would be susceptible to the

threat. The anticipated response to a pandemic or bioterror threat

is to shut down the air handling system. This is a response akin

to " shutting the barn door after the horse has gone " . By the time

you detect that there is something wrong, it's too late.

The threat of spreading mould spores throughout the building is

another potentially serious outcome. The presence of mould in

buildings, together with the serious health threat that it can pose,

has led to some ruinous damage awards in the United States. Toxic

mould claims are being litigated in the USA in the same way as

asbestos was in the UK in the 1980s with the average commercial

settlement being around $1 million.

While that may be less likely in the UK, a series of toxic mould

claims ending in the designation of a large office building as

having `sick building syndrome' would seriously disrupt operations.

What about filters?

Yes, all air handling systems have filters but they are primarily

designed to protect the air handling equipment rather than filter

out materials harmful to humans. These filters only eliminate about

1 percent of indoor pollutants and simply allow bacteria, viruses

and spores to pass through easily. Even the installation of the

finest filters (for example, a HEPA C filter) are ineffectual

against viruses because they measure .027 micron against the

capability of HEPA to only intercept microbials down to 0.3 microns.

In any event, HEPA C filters are impractical, since the energy used

to force the air through the filter would make it very expensive in

terms of a significant extra energy overhead (to say nothing of the

cost of installing upgraded equipment to make the required air

pressure possible).

A `firewall' for microbiological threats

Fortunately, there is a relatively simple solution resulting from

new ways of applying an old and proven technology. Moreover, as an

insurance policy against virtually any biological and pandemic risk,

it also increases profitability and provides a healthy ROI even if

neither of these threats materialise.

Niels Ryberg Finsen discovered ultraviolet C light waves that are

present between visible light (UVA & UVB) and X-Rays. He proved that

UVC destroyed ALL viruses, bacteria and mould regardless of strain

and for this he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904. One result is

that UVC light has been widely used in sewage treatment plants for

the last 50 years. So, why not apply it to air handling systems to

provide a `firewall' for harmful organisms?

This is more difficult than applying the technology to water

purification because the air in a building air handling system is

moving at about 2.5 metres/second and until recently, the UVC

germicidal waves generated were not strong enough to kill the

pathogens in a single pass. Also, the air coming from an air

conditioning system is, by definition, cold and again the germicidal

properties of UVC drop off with colder temperatures. It wasn't until

about 14 years ago that a company in California, Steril Aire,

developed a UVC system that overcame these problems. The way this

system works is illustrated below.

Figure 1: The UVC " Firewall " Preventing Transmission of Infectious

Diseases (click picture for larger view)

Figure 2: The UVC Lighting Arrays (click picture for larger view)

These drawings illustrate how the pathogens that are generated by a

cough are killed by the UVC light, which is a powerful germicide

that has the added benefit of being effective regardless of the

strain of virus or bacteria. This is very important as each year a

new strain of influenza requires a new vaccine to be developed, UVC

doesn't work like this: it will be effective against any strain of

flu. This provides the firewall in the air handling system and

prevents the pathogens from being circulated (and re-circulated)

throughout the building. Surfaces, filters and cooling coils inside

the air handling system are also disinfected by the UVC lighting

arrays installed at strategic points within the system.

This would apply equally to viruses resulting from a pandemic or

bioterror attack, whether the source was inside or outside the

building.

I have to emphasise that, though implementation of UVC is extremely

effective for those in the office building in a pandemic or

bioterror attack, it is not a complete solution. There are other

components of a total solution that must be considered in protecting

employees when *outside* of the building.

Why isn't UVC widely used?

That's a good question, given the impact of the UVC solution on

profitability through employee health, productivity, reduction in

absenteeism and reductions in energy cost which we have already

discussed.

The answer is that there is no logical function within the typical

organisation that is accountable for fixing the issues identified

above. The building engineers are responsible for the air handling

system but are only measured on its operating status and

effectiveness and, other than very basic and imprecise criteria, not

on the quality of the end product delivered to building inhabitants –

the air. Human resource management would probably be a logical

candidate for accountability for employee health, productivity and

absenteeism but are not aware of the connection between those

factors and building air handling systems.

Risk management: a responsibility and an opportunity

While accountability for the current debilitating effects induced by

the re-circulation of building air may be hard to pin down, the

responsibility for responding to a pandemic or bioterror attack

rests squarely with the Risk management or business continuity

professionals.

Just as you would have no hesitation in recommending the

installation of an IT firewall and anti-virus precautions (should IT

have neglected their responsibilities in this area), the

installation of a similar type of barrier to the pathogens contained

in bioterror or pandemic threats seems an obvious step.

Moreover, since the installation is simple, the cost is

comparatively small and the ROI is exceptional, it's a

recommendation that is likely to bring a round of applause rather

than a round of groans. In fact, a chief executive would probably

welcome an opportunity to significantly improve profitability this

easily, while gaining kudos for providing employees with a healthier

work environment and reducing exposure to business interruption.

Throughout this article, we have referred to the impact that the

current design of the air handling system has on employees and the

business. This comes at a significant cost. While it is difficult to

forecast exact numbers for any specific building and occupants,

numerous studies and `before and after' comparisons provide very

conservative minimums. These include a 10 percent reduction in

absenteeism (20-30 percent is closer to the average impact

experienced), a 10 percent reduction in energy costs (due to the

elimination of the biofilm on the heat exchange coils) and reduction

in maintenance costs for keeping heat exchange coils clean. This

does not take into account other intangible benefits such as

corporate image, employee health, staff morale and the increase in

productivity for employees who would otherwise become sick but still

come to work.

The effectiveness of UVC: a visual demonstration

The photographs below are contact plates that were pressed against

the heat exchange coils in the air handling system of an operating

room in a UK hospital. After five days, the contact plate on the

left (before the installation of UVC) shows a `healthy' growth of

organisms. By contrast, after five days, the contact plate on the

right (after the installation of UVC) shows no visible growth.

As an example of the potential return, we recently modeled a

solution for a building in London housing 5,000 people. The initial

outlay was £83K for 5,000 people (or about £17 per employee) and the

predicted savings by reducing the absenteeism by 10 percent (half of

what we think would have really occurred) was £854K (or about £171

per employee). Adding the savings from increased energy efficiency

and reduced maintenance costs (cleaning of heat exchange coils)

makes it an even more attractive investment.

That type of payback, together with the protection from disaster due

to a pandemic or bioterror attack, makes this a very attractive

option.

Author: Hillary Spicer is managing director – E-CO - www.e-co.uk.com