he UK’s roofs have taken quite a battering over the past few months with record levels of rain causing standing water and testing flat roof surfaces to the limits.
The default setting for refurbishing roofs with bitumen-based surfaces is usually a like-for-like replacement. While this is often a cost effective approach in cap-ex terms, it can be a false saving in terms of service life, maintenance costs and the risks associated with hot works.
Where damage to the roof requires urgent attention, a cold-applied system that can be used to overlay the existing surface with no strip out offers a fast alternative to bitumen-based systems, while minimising disruption and avoiding all fire risk. A fully cold-applied insulated roofing system can be also specified as an alternative to hot works-based systems for installations where an upgrade to the building’s thermal performance is required.
What’s the risk?
So, in the contemporary construction sector at a time when health and safety is taken very seriously and professional roofing companies installing bitumen-based systems take every precaution to protect their own team and others, why should we be concerned about fire risk?
The simple answer is that hot works inherently involve fire risk, even in the most capable and vigilant hands. The use of hot works to install traditional bitumen-based systems is one of the biggest health and safety risks associated with roofing schemes, in particular those that use a blow torch for application.
When there are alternatives available that offer ease of installation, excellent performance and extended service life, along with zero fire risk, specifying an alternative to a hot works-based system underpins improved health and safety and makes sound commercial sense too.
It not only reduces risk at the time of the roof refurbishment, but also avoids the need to bring hot works to site at any point in the future to carry out repairs. The result is a reduction in the whole life costs of the project along with other safety implications, for up to a 25 year period, depending on the system used.
Occupier consequences
The specifier should not only consider the health and safety risk in terms of installation team wellbeing and the impact of fire in causing programme delays, they should also be aware of the potential knock on costs and business interruption issues for the building owner or occupier.
In order to manage safety on site, a contractor using hot works may have to control access into and around the building, which could cause inconvenience or logistical issues for the occupier.
And if a fire does occur, the implications could be far reaching. Beyond the obvious health and safety risk to the building’s occupants, the damage that even a minor fire can cause from flames, smoke, water and foam is both costly and disruptive.
It may necessitate closing parts of the building for refurbishment, causing business interruption issues for the occupier, along with the costs of alternative accommodation, replacing furniture and equipment and rising insurance costs. Indeed, business interruption itself can be costly for the occupier in terms of lost productivity and damage to their reputation if deadlines are missed or service levels cannot be maintained. In commercial buildings, offices may also contain paper documents that cannot be replaced.
Alternative thinking
Traditionally, hot works have been a feature of roofing projects because there was no alternative. With the array of cold applied systems now available, it’s time to think differently about the safest way to deliver a roofing scheme.
