Blog posts of '2011' 'October'

INVESTIGATION INTO THE USE OF ASBESTOS IN SAFES


Due to increasing public awareness of the hazards of asbestos, safe suppliers frequently receive calls regarding the possibility of asbestos being present in their safes, particularly those described as ‘fire resistant’.  The replies they receive are often misleading or simply false.  They are either told no asbestos was used or wrongly advised that they featured ‘white’ asbestos which is “not considered hazardous”. This is unlikely to be due to a conscious intention to deceive but more likely because they themselves are either ignorant of the facts or unaware that although asbestos was not used in their current products, it did indeed feature in the past.


‘In the past’ is an important term as asbestos has not been used in security products for many years; in fact its use has been completely banned by the EU for some time.  However, for a long period it was widely used as a door seal by many leading manufacturers of fire resistant safes and cabinets.


The majority of these document fire safes and filing cabinets use a solid fill based on a mixture of gypsum and foamed concrete.  In the event of the safe being subjected to heat, moisture is given off as steam.  Like old fashioned porridge saucepans, the interior of the safe cannot exceed the boiling temperature of water (100ºC) until all the moisture is driven off. The brass name plates on some ancient safes frequently feature the mysterious number 212 and not everyone recognises that this is a reference to 212º, the boiling temperature of water expressed in Fahrenheit.


At this temperature, paper records remain relatively unaffected and emerge from the safe slightly damp, perhaps a little charred,  but otherwise unscathed.  During the Brixton Riots of 1981 a jewellers’ shop was totally destroyed by fire.  It contained two safes, one with moisture generating insulation and one without.  The heat generated by the inferno was extreme enough to melt glass yet when the fire resistant safe was opened, the contents remained exactly as they were when they had been locked away the evening before.  When the adjacent safe without this protection was opened all the jewellery and watches had melded into one and totally destroyed.


However, none of these fire resistant materials contained asbestos.  Asbestos is a very efficient flame retardant material – it won’t burn but it will conduct heat.  Some of us may remember when ironing boards had a square pad of asbestos at the end of the board to stand the hot iron on.  The pad would not scorch or burn, but if you put your hand underneath, it would be extremely hot.  Consequently it is not at all suitable as an effective heat resistant compound.


None the less, the flame retardant properties of asbestos were ideal for use as door seals to prevent flames being drawn into the interior of the safe through the slight gap between the door and frame.  This invariably took the form of a woven asbestos tape adhered around the door frame against which the door would close.  It is this woven tape that causes many to be concerned that it may contain asbestos.


Having received several enquiries from users of fire resistant safes, A to Z Safe Warehouse, leading specialists in the reconditioning and supply of cash and document safes, contacted safe makers to enquire about the possibility that older models may have contained asbestos.  Their responses were so ambiguous or equivocal that the directors decided to conduct their own investigation.  They commissioned Vintec Environmental Management to collect a number of samples from document safes waiting reconditioning in their warehouse, then submitting them to scientific scrutiny by Spectra Analysis Services Limited.  Out of nine samples, eight contained Chrysotile asbestos.


It has been estimated that 95% of asbestos found in the UK is this form of ‘white’ Chrysotile.  Chrysotile asbestos fibres are considered carcinogenic if exposed to long term inhalation.  It is not known how much abrasion is caused by the opening and shutting of the safe door or whether this constitutes a threat, but today all asbestos products are considered to be a health hazard.


So, how can you tell if your old document safe contains asbestos?  Having conducted their own investigations, A to Z Safe Warehouse has more experience than most in detecting and recognising these materials and today provides a free survey service.  Once it is established that asbestos is present the client has two options.  The first is to contact a licensed specialist to remove potentially hazardous material in accordance with the Control of Asbestos Work Regulations 1987.  Using trained operatives wearing protective clothing and equipped with specially designed tools, they safely remove and dispose of the asbestos tape, replacing it with non toxic and more efficient intumescent seals.  Unfortunately, this highly specialised service is at a cost which generally far exceeds the value of the safe.


The second and frequently more cost effective solution is to have the entire safe removed and taken to a site where hazardous materials can be disposed of.  They can then be replaced by modern fire resistant document and computer data safes.  Both the company that removes and transports the safes and the company that disposes of them must be licensed and have fully trained operatives.


Following their investigations, A to Z Safe Warehouse was forced to dispose of a considerable number of their own stock of used document safes.  Products featuring asbestos included models by major manufacturers such as Stratford, Tann, Rosengrens, Guardian, Chatwood Milner, Chubb, Kardex, Hagger & Daniels and Sperry Remington, but this is by no means a definitive list.  As a result of their experience, they became trained and licensed to remove and dispose of safes and cabinets containing asbestos


For further guidance A to Z Safe Warehouse has published a brief report containing frequently asked questions and entitled Asbestos in Safes.  Copies are freely available by contacting chris@atozsafes.com or calling Chris Goldfinch on 01268 566317

ARMED ROBBERY – THE ONLY REAL DETERRENT
Armed robbery in the UK is now so commonplace that unless it is spectacular or brutal, it seldom reaches the national press and only warrants a few centimetres in local papers.  Well planned robberies by teams of professional criminals are mostly concentrated on targets where the risk is high and the takings substantial; banks, building societies and post offices.  Less sophisticated armed raids on retail premises are frequently drug related, seldom by more than two people and are rarely well organised.  Whilst severe post trauma shock is common it is rare for staff to be physically injured during a robbery.


The main retail targets for robbery tend to be those with late opening hours, licensed premises (pubs, clubs and off licenses), filling stations and forecourt shops, convenience stores, fast-food restaurants and take-aways.


The most common weapons are knives and clubs.  Handguns (genuine or fake) are less common but the most disturbing development of recent times has been the threat of HIV infected syringes.  However, it is important that the risks are put into perspective.


The risk to employees of becoming involved in an armed raid remains relatively small.  The number of vulnerable premises in the UK runs into thousands and the percentage of those falling victim to armed robbers is extremely small.  As physical violence is often threatened but seldom used, the chances of being injured in such an incident are even more remote.  If sensible anti hold-up precautions are installed, the likelihood of staff being injured during an armed robbery is virtually eliminated. 


Employers Responsibility
Under the Health & Safety at Work Act, employers are required to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their employees; what is considered “reasonable” is a matter for individual judgement.  However, employees are entitled to expect that their employer should take effective steps to deter armed robbery or reduce the risk to an acceptable level.  Recent years have seen employees prosecuted for failing to ensure their employees are safe from harm.


Common Misunderstandings
One of the most common misunderstandings is to believe that if staff co-operate fully with an armed robber, they will not be injured.  This makes two flawed assumptions. Firstly that armed criminals will behave in a fair and reasonable manner (sadly armed robbers are not fair or reasonable people) and ignores other motivating factors besides the need for cash to buy drugs.  These may include social inadequacy, anger, a compulsion to dominate, even sexual gratification – any of which may cause the raider to threaten violence.  Certainly it is important that staff do not behave in any way likely to exacerbate the situation or cause a violent response.  They should never remonstrate with the raiders, attempt to retaliate, call for help or attempt to activate an alarm.


The second assumption is that the risk is only one of physical violence.  The trauma caused simply by the threat of injury by a knife, gun or club should never be underestimated.  Its psychological effects can be deep, needing far more long-term treatment than cuts or bruises.


Then there is the frequently expressed concern that if the raider is denied access to the cash by a security device, staff will be subjected to violence in retaliation.  Whilst this is not impossible, it is extremely rare.


Finally, there is the myth that armed robbery is simply a fact of life and little if anything can be done to prevent it.  Whilst nothing can ever be 100% certain to prevent and incident, there is much that can be done to deter and reduce the risk to an acceptable level.


Digital Locking Systems
The last few years has seen the rapid development of sophisticated electronic locking systems for safes.  These intelligent locks frequently incorporate time locking systems.  The lock is programmed ensure the safe cannot be opened after hours to reduce the likelihood of staff members being ceased, taken to the premises and forced to enter the code.  It can be pre programmed to include weekends and Bank Holidays.


However, the threat or armed robbery is also present during opening times so these locks also incorporate time delay facilities.  The code is entered by a pre-set period must elapse before the lock will open.  The delay can vary but commonly this is no less than 5 minutes with the countdown shown on an display panel.  Armed robbers want to be in an out as quickly as they can.  Any delay increases the risk of being apprehended.  A 5 minute delay is usually unendurable and in the vast majority of cases, the raid is instantly aborted.


The most advanced systems can now be monitored remotely via a broadband connection.  A security manager or supervisor many miles away can immediately be alerted if a safe is opened or the lock operated at an inappropriate time.  At the click of a mouse they can see if the safe is locked or unlocked; whose code was used to open it and at what time.  Any deviation will give cause for suspicion and immediate investigation.


Maximum Effectiveness
In order for the system to achieve maximum deterrent effect, everyone must know it is there.  Bright yellow warning signs are now a common site in licensed and retail premises throughout the country.  It is essential that they are placed correctly so that they are always visible.


Time locking and time delay systems have been shown to reduce the risk of armed robbery by as much as 80%, however to achieve maximum effect it is essential to:
 display the warning signs prominently
 choose opening times carefully and keep them to the minimum duration
 set the maximum tolerable time delay period – at least 5 minutes
 keep information on user codes, opening times and time delay periods strictly confidential – never disclose this information to anyone
 don’t take chances - use the anti hold-up system all the time


The more effectively you use the digital locking system and the more prominently the signs are displayed, the safer you and your employees will be.


Nothing can ever claim to have a 100% deterrent effect on armed robbers but anti hold-up locking systems are designed specifically to protect staff from injury and trauma and their effectiveness has been proven time and time again. Simply trusting to luck that you or your staff will not fall prey to armed robbers is a dangerous practice and should no longer be an option.


Mike Palmer FSyI