Decreasing the dangers of working with disaster
05 January 2006

Extreme weather causes extreme damage. And as the growing number of disaster restoration companies will testify, the job of restoring properties caught up in fires and floods is one that must be taken with extreme caution. Not only is the work itself complicated, painstaking and highly skilled, the health and safety risks to those employed to carry it out are another matter contractors must deal with if they are to avoid potential lawsuits. So what should - and shouldn't -restoration companies be doing to ensure that their employees' exposure to danger is kept to a minimum

Asbestos alert Asbestos, which was not banned for use in the UK until 1999, is thought to be found in almost all buildings. Present in both domestic and commercial premises among materials ranging from ceiling tiles to insulation boards, law dictates how it must be dealt with and permits only contractors with a specialist license to work with or remove the substance. Jeff Charlton, managing director, Disaster Advice, and founding chairman of the British Damage Management Association (BDMA) believes that many disaster restoration contractors ignore guidelines when they are working on domestic premises. "Typically asbestos flooring, vinyl, artex, decorative plaster, paints and other asbestos containing products are simply ripped out, possibly exposing the resident or employee to asbestos fibres," he warns.

While asbestos is only deadly in a friable (easy to crumble) state, contractors must be aware that fire and water damage may result in the substance becoming so. If the presence of asbestos containing materials is suspected (this can be confirmed through laboratory tests), it is recommended that air movement be restricted and HEPA filtered negative air equipment be installed.

Mould war

The threats posed by the carcino genic material that is asbestos are well documented, but mould is an other substance that must be treated with special care. Usually harmless, when acti vated by moisture, mould can release toxic or allergenic spores into the air which when inhaled triggers anything from aches, pains and flu symptoms to more serious respiratory illnesses. Where buildings affected by flooding are not dried or cleaned within two to three days mould is thought to thrive, particularly in cavities, cupboards and under-floor areas. "Careful control of released spores is essential and may mean installing measures similar to that of asbestos," advises Jeff Charlton.

"While disinfection with fungicidal washes may be effective externally it is generally accepted that killing mould simply destroys the spore envelope, which allows release of some of the most toxic chemicals known to man."

Spore competencies

As a general rule it seems that good practice would involve treating mould in a similar manner to asbestos in that, even though it is not always dangerous it should be considered so. This is the view held by Ben Noble, managing director at Clean-Tec Restoration Services based in Northern Ireland, who explains that while respirators should be worn by workers, it is that they are using the correct one. "There are many different grades of respirators which are suitable for specific hazardous substances. If someone is not using the right respirator it is as good as useless." "How mould is disposed of depends on how it is classed by the specific local authority. Some classify it as medical waste which means it does not need to be incinerated but is double bagged and then taken to land fill." Aside from removal of visible colonies, remaining mould can also be treated with anti-microbials, while employees may be protected from airborne spores by installing air scrubbing equipment. This also has the effect of reducing cross-contamination in non contaminated areas. However, as Ben Noble points out, the bigger risks do not necessarily come from substances encountered in a fire or flood damaged property, but with how it is treated. "There are potential dangers associated with the machinery used. For example, when dry fogging the property with a smoke machine, you are filling a property with tiny particles of deodoriser - which again requires the correct respirator." "Also, some of the cleaning chemicals - degreasers and solvents - that are used are stronger than those used for general cleaning. Of course, the right workwear must be worn, chemicals must be diluted correctly and if using spray bottles a mask must be used."

Suits the hazard, sir

The need for personal protective equipment to be absolutely appropriate to the type of hazard being dealt with is re-asserted by Pete Collins, fire and flood director with the National Carpet Cleaner's Association, who believes: "It is in the best interests of the company to use to use the right PPE. For example, when dealing with mould, wearing a mask with filters will let spores through - what you actually need is a full face mask with oxygen supply." As well as further threats associated with exposed electric work also a circuits, working at heights and potential inhalation of soot to contend with, a disaster restoration contractor may also need to include in its training and risk assessments the dangers presented by any structural damage which may cause parts of a building to be unsafe to in. There is risk of hepatitis from contaminated flood waters for which a cautious contractor could prepare by organising the provision of inoculations.

But how many companies carrying out disaster restoration work are fully prepared, insured and qualified for the task that they are taking on? Not enough, according to Jeff Charlton, who believes that the vast majority of jobs are currently carried out by companies that do not follow best practice and are putting their employees and occupants of the buildings they treat at possible risk of suffering health problems.

"Education and training are vital, as well as having the right equipment and being fully prepared for the task. But there is no regulatory body in place to ensure firms are competent, and nothing that says they have to have a particular type of training. I would say about 95% of the work is being done by companies not qualified to do so."



::: ENDS :::

---

More Features

•	Decreasing the dangers of working with disaster
•	Rainbow restores... across the UK
•	Is it time to help cleaners brush up their English?
•	PHS Washrooms makes smelly urinals a thing of the past
•	Turning paper supply into an art form with Kruger Tissue
•	Ozone versus the superbugs