Townsville 2019: The Aftermath Revisited
On the anniversary of the 2019 Townsville, Australia floods we reflect on the event and lessons learned for the restoration industry from an Indoor Environmental Professionals perspective.
Australia Day 2019 we were all watching the weather. Widespread rain was expected across the state of Queensland due to the meeting of a slow-moving tropical low, north-east of Mt Isa and a very active coastal monsoon trough. Moist air from the Coral Sea and south-easterlies in the Townsville region developed into a convergence band creating significant and unstable weather. The resulting monsoonal system then embedded itself over the region and began dumping its load January 27th. The rainfall levels were unprecedented.
It persisted unmoving releasing record rainfall and causing widespread flooding. All new 24 hour rainfall records were seen in Ingham, Woodlands and Mount Isa. But for Townsville the worst was yet to come.
On February 3rd, rounding a week after the rain started, the city’s Ross River Dam reached over 200% capacity prompting authorities to fully open the spillway gates. Epic releases of 1900 cubic metres of water per second saw the inundation of several downstream Townsville suburbs with the most concentrated of them being Rosslea, Railway Estate, Idalia, Hermit Park and Oonoonbah, dealing a further blow to the already submerged city. These mega releases combined with over a metre of rainfall in 10 days, the highest rainfall event the region had seen, saw the floodwaters rise to over 2m in the worst affected areas.
The event became one of the most severe weather events to impact the region. It was postulated to have an Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) of at least 1 in 200 years (the deluge in some areas suggested perhaps even 1 in 2000 ARI) and is said to have influenced the creation of Cyclone Oma.
After much of the rainfall had subsided the area was hit with a heatwave compounding the already difficult conditions. This is indicated by the red circle in the figure below.
The scale of the event was nothing short of disastrous. Multiple lives lost directly to flood waters and countless others from indirect results from the event, 300,000 head of cattle perished and more than 3000 properties thought to be affected by water ingress with estimated property damages totalling well over $1 billion.
MOBILISATION OPPORTUNITIES & CHALLENGES
While all this was playing out, a few groups of experienced operators preemptively organized themselves for early deployment. Trucks were packed ready to embark on the road trip north. Taking a gamble they’d beat the floodwaters and be ready to support the cleanup operation. Some were successful. Others had to settle for sleeping on the road.
For those who got through, their seasoned foresight landed them at the doorstep of disaster but ensured much-needed assistance for overwhelmed local firms. Not surprisingly, the event quickly became a national recovery effort. And this was just the beginning of a stream of unwavering support for the thousands affected. Help came in all forms, from the well-versed Townsville community, inter-state dedicated (and opportunistic) contractors and as always the Australian Army chipped in.
For many businesses the decision to deploy early was a bold one, the dam had not been released. But at this early time all hands, and equipment were required. Not to mention the logistics of how far removed Townsville is from major population centres of the country.
Although the number of firms and hands-on-deck were numerous, for the first 2 months (February and March) there was more water damage than available equipment. This damage heavy ratio combined with the mobility lag effect caused properties to have less than adequate remediation equipment onsite. Resulting in subsequent proliferation of microbes, even in properties that had been speedily attended. The tropical climate seemed to conspire with the mould (mold). With post rain and flooding temperatures sitting around 39⁰ Celsius (102⁰ Fahrenheit) and 70% Relative Humidity on days.
The event became a race, and not just against time (and humidity).
Accommodation quickly became scarce. Both for those coming up from out-of-town and the displaced. Entire hotels were hired out by single firms. Subsequently, AirBnB and rental properties were booked out. Year-long rental agreements were negotiated in anticipation that work will be assured. This dramatically stressed and increased the local rental market which a year on has only now started to deflate.
Access to flights and rental vehicles were severely limited. Typically vehicles were hired from close out-of-town centres. The next best option was to fly to Mackay (3.5hrs), Proserpine (2hrs) or Cairns (3hrs) and travel the remainder by road to Townsville. Recovery efforts would have been greatly enhanced if additional flights were temporarily added, however other services and utilities may not have sustained the influx.
The final race that could not be won (or worked around) was the progression of Chronic Environmental Dysbiosis. One where the built environment undergoes a measurable swing in microbial activity. Where mould (mold) and bacterial contamination proliferate with little resistance and balance. And to make matters worse (and to fungal advantage) a week-long post-flood heatwave ensured optimal microbial growth conditions. Humidity and food is fungal heaven. Timely mobilisation and unhindered access still may not have prevented this occurrence?
WHEN DYSBIOSIS HAPPENS
We saw substantial, prolonged water damage chased by heat wave conditions create the perfect built environment petri dish. Repeatedly saturated building materials and contents saw an explosion of microbial growth as flood waters receded. Surfaces resembled the rainbow. The air looked like a fungal zoo. So much so that ‘clean’ outdoor air reference samples were hard to come by. Epic concentrations of Water Damage Indicative genera polluted reference samples and distorted both diversity profiles and comparison thresholds.
Hospitals were consequently inundated by those suffering acute respiratory symptoms and asthma-like illness. Masks were recommended attire for known sufferers, indoors and out. Further illustrating the need for enhanced understanding and research into airborne fungal and bio-toxin related illness across all environments.
Sanitization also became a large feature with some insurance firms insisting on guarantees that flood-borne effluent had been effectively sanitized. Using the Sewage Indicator bacteria Escherichia coli (E.coli) as a marker for environmental presence. In many cases this posed a greater (and more stubborn) challenge for eradication than fungal remediation.
Local cases of Melioidosis were being reported, a potentially fatal soil-borne bacterial infection. Endemic to the region, this only added to the distorted microbial profile and became a concern for both contractor and public health. Burkholderia pseudomallei is a common inhabitant in tropical areas and can be difficult to isolate in soil/debris samples. Requests for Meliodosis began flowing in, in part thanks to local sensationalised news coverage of the illness.
These risks in concert with the demand for guaranteed safety reports, in near-immediate turnaround times, heralded a new chapter for those involved. The sheer magnitude of the event tested capacity and efficiency to their limits and prompted the author to describe a term inspired by this remarkable event, Environmental Dysbiosis.
Environmental Dysbiosis describes an unfavourable and significant change in microbial presence following a water-damage event. It may be defined as “microbial imbalance in the natural flora (currently phrased normal indoor ecology) of an occupiable space caused by changes in Ecological Balance, promoting overgrowth and rendering it uninhabitable”.
It’s a term that more than adequately describes the microbial happenings surrounding Townsville 2019, Acute Environmental Dysbiosis quickly became Chronic. And additionally offers vocabulary to facilitate informed conversation surrounding mould (mold) remediation outcomes. Especially with respect to ‘clearing’ or making safe of previously uninhabitable spaces.
THE NATURE OF DEMAND
Aside from the thousands of affected houses and people a vast majority of Townsville’s infrastructure was impacted and largely uninhabitable. If not caused by flood water, excessive rain exploited vulnerabilities in local building construction. Leaving key community hubs without habitable locations to hold scheduled community events or celebrations. Subsequently, many buildings and properties were arguably prematurely deemed ‘remediated’ or ‘safe’, sometimes encouraged by social or political influences.
This opened opportunities for emerging consultancies and remediation firms to establish themselves rapidly. It also allowed neo-qualified businesses to unscrupulously involve themselves causing more expense and risk than necessary. Some of which may have been avoided if demand for habitable turnaround wasn’t elevated. At one point it seemed that “every man and his dog” was attempting to “help” or take lower hanging fruit without legitimate expertise or tried-and-true applications.
Where this became most evident was mass labor hire with limited supervision. Businesses designed for asbestos removal began undertaking microbial remediation works. Previously nonexistent environmental mycology laboratories opened for speedy analysis. Builders were making decisions normally reserved for environmental professionals without legitimate understanding of the risks. All culminating in a compromised end result of safe and habitable built environments.
Still one year on, mismanaged (and ongoing) projects have now entered a subsequent tropical summer. And once more become microbially compromised, again sustaining Environmental Dysbiosis. Insurance claims are forced to be reopened only further inconveniencing a community that simply wants to get back on their feet.
TECHNOLOGY OLD AND NEW
Early on the Townsville City Council offered antimicrobial and microbial inhibitor chemicals enmasse. These were offered at accessible public locations such as service stations aimed at stemming exponential microbial growth (and likely encouraged by profiting suppliers). While this was well intentioned, the products presented may not have provided the preconceived benefit. It soon became apparent that the products were either ineffective or were not adequately applied. What it did encourage however, was elbow grease by the community at large. This in itself was a most beneficial outcome from the initiative.
Townsville became a restoration melting pot. Every cleaning technique, chemical and analytical method available (or newly devised) was thrown into the mix. Townsville 2019 saw them pitted against each other. Results could be seen side by side and in real time. This thankfully highlighted methods and products that work and very obviously displayed those that don’t. It also brought out attitudes and opinions, “I have always done it this way” and the “this is meant to be the latest trend and future of the industry”, offering unprecedented transparency to the industry.
Eco-conscious trends saw the use of less synthetic and low-toxic applications, using emulsified essential oils and vinegar. But also synthetic chemicals unethically promoting themselves as natural or organic. Some products seen leaving a subtle surface film and a conductive sodium layer ensuring that moisture meters using short pin probes would alert a false positive for dampness. And other products that leaves an oily residue was encountered that reduces the efficiency of instantaneous testing tools, like ATP and Enzyme technologies, but failing culture based methods of analysis.
Fogging appeared to have a reduced dependency than previous years. Suggesting better practices of physical removal are being upheld by the majority. There were still some those using a hole saw and fogging wall cavities – the spray and pray practice with magic sauce or fu fu juice. Appropriate post remediation use of fogging or gassing was still implemented in difficult areas. Hydrogen Peroxide was used predominantly which also can be applied using a foaming action for sanitisation. Chlorine Dioxide another trending chemical. Ozone was also a regular occurrence, which should have been accompanied by signage to warn those entering that they may walk straight into a carcinogenic cloud of discomfort.
Branding and marketing aside, the true determinant of project success and validation was always elbow grease. Physical work on surfaces by hand or power tool, no matter the chemical, saw the most effective results. Techniques and practices that standards such as the IICRC S520 promote won the war.
TESTING METHODS
Testing or validation technologies saw their own version of the chemical technology mentality – old vs new, fast vs slow, cheap vs expensive. In a contentious market with an array of varying beliefs in application and standards to uphold, this space saw newer toys being used, such as Enzyme and Protein (surface and air) fast turnaround analysis tools. Spruiking a more specific testing method and a similar application of the ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) meters. These tools seek to offer quick indicative values determined by their own internal referencing values. Some are even supported by notable agencies such as the US EPA, and have the price tag to boot. The application for these technologies are for onsite evaluation for the prevalence of organic activity, and/or the presence of different microorganisms depending on the reagents used. These may offer results with Traffic light indications or an internally referenced number depending on the device, but do not offer indications of specific organisms with exception to the ATPs Coliform reagents. These however are not commonly carried.
With this the numbers game for sanitisation then began.
- Do reference ranges exist?
- What are the acceptable values?
- Does presence or absence indicate adequate organism activity?
Effluent Evaluation
Acceptable values vary and in some cases no standard exists. In many cases the primary concern was for any presence of effluent. Unfortunately most of the tools used did not differentiate organic activity into fecal indicating coliforms such as E.coli. Where an instantaneous value suggested low levels doing side-by-side comparisons culturable methods reported presence of fecal coliforms. Bringing the testing undoubtedly into question.
Some took a greater step of assurance and employed Total Coliform testing (which include E.coli). This superior test uses an identical sampling method, and provides superior wider assurance testing for more species of faecal indicator organisms with similar analytical results and costs.
Questions loomed. Who will absorb reasonable risk for validating sanitization? Were Internal Reference devices “Pass” values satisfactory or were culture-based methods best practice?
Some Environmental Professionals avoided this argument altogether. Suggesting that as no standard of sanitization can be “ironclad” validation or sampling is futile. Even now there is still no agreed approach to effluent. Let alone the others that follow.
Fungal Sampling
Fungal airborne and surface sampling was commonplace. For remediation firms evaluating their procedures (and moderating their risk) as well as Indoor Environmental Professionals of all walks. Most practitioners used popular Slit Impaction methods for non-viable, direct microscopy analysis. This offered fast results. Same day if accessible/required. When compared to traditional culturable (viable) methods with approximately 7 days growth time with no option to expedite results saw the slit impaction more widely employed by itself.
Both methods have their pros and cons but there also existed a procedure of using both viable and non-viable methods together. To leverage their respective pluses and minuses with duplicate sampling. This duplication is intended to garner greater confidence in results, as an internal and direct comparison for interpretation with the only draw-backs being price and increased analysis time, while providing the interpreter with superior knowledge of both fungi and the current environment.
Air Sampling
Airborne sampling strategies continued to be a hot topic. Still without industry consensus, the schools of thought and application during the disaster recovery and to date were as follows:
- Should one sample with air scrubbers or movers present and on? The argument being, “well if it’s in the air it’s not going to change if they were off no matter the time between”.
- Sampling with air scrubbers or movers present but off for half a day. The argument here, “studies suggest that the slowest and smallest particles representing Asp/Pen drop 1 meter per hour so if after a few hours there is still an excess abundance of spores there may still be a concern”.
- Turn air movers on, agitate the ground with a broom before and during sampling. “This will be a true test of the environment being cleaned of excessive spores even if they have settled”.
- Wait 2-3 days after all potentially contaminated equipment is removed before testing. “After waiting this period of time, the fungi will have likely gone through a sporulation cycle. If there is still a concern present it would otherwise be missed by shorter wait times”.
One approach to third party validation not mentioned above was to not sample air at all. Instead hundreds if not thousands of properties were evaluated by Visual Inspection (VI) only or supported by surface samples where something may have appeared a little untoward.
Surface Sampling
Surface sampling also had 4 streams; culturable methods with Swabs or the difficult to obtain Contact Plates offering results in CFU/m3 and the more typical direct microscopy. Direct microscopy generally offered 3 options:
- Traditional spores or fungal structures (fs) per m2 with genus break downs.
- IICRC S520 Categorisation and interpretation by the laboratories
- A blend of both with a different categorization method through the ASTM D7658
These are some of the strategies being implemented depending on the consultancy engaged and reflects the differing positions within the industry. Who is right and who is wrong may not be the question, instead the question might be, what associated risk and bias is present for each of these? And are these firms willing to defend their position with this consideration?
Insurance Reviews
Approximately 6 months into the disaster recovery, many of the large insurers began to get their heads around the situation. They woke up to what their contractors had really been up to in efforts to service them and their claimants. This prompted changes and reaffirmations of policy and expectations. It also encouraged Insurers to review their own position and determine what their acceptable risk was.
In this process Insurer internal panel preferred contractors were contacted to better understand their services and outcomes. Some had roundtable and fortuitous conference call conversations about what is being delivered and at what cost. The result of this saw decisions such as:
- Removal or slap on the knuckles of many panel contractors, some with notable presence in the marketplace. Reasons for this vary but include:
- Perceived price gouging
- Service quality
- Response and coordination outcomes
- Excessive labor hire to supervisor ratios and others
Insurance firms also made decisions on inclusions and exclusions of service such as:
- Floor tiles – remove them or leave them in position
- Remediation and repairs of possible pre-existing water damaged materials
- The cost and coverage of premiums and allowable excess
- To reinstate the properties correcting building flaws or reinstate like for like without discretion
One topic that made a big influence for the Environmental Professional industry was the level of validation of remediation that was to be expected.
VALIDATION STRATEGIES
A profoundly positive outcome of the Insurance review and Validation saw a strong push back on the Visual Inspection strategy. In some cases, a portion of the properties that had this method applied were revisited later for a form of Clearance Testing. This managed risk of contamination reoccurrence being laid upon the insurer without major recourse for those implementing or encouraging this approach.
Split opinion between insurers brought some with expectations of compulsory E. coli sampling as a method of validating sanitisation. Other insurers at this later stage (5-6 months post event) evaluated it being of little risk, choosing not to pursue this measure.
Across the board it was conceded that 3rd party Environmental Validation was a solid business decision to reduce their risk and offer confidence that reopening claims would be reduced and that health concerns of their claimants were reassured.
These Validations varied in level:
- Post Remediation Evaluation (PRE) – Where the Remediation firm or Builder performed their own sampling to offer some confidence in their work [offers Assurance of their own methods]
- In Process IPT – A first step in introducing 3rd party Environmental Consultancy offering basic sampling results to offer assurance of effective restoration methods and guidance leading to a positive outcome while a project is ongoing.
- Post Remediation Validation (PRV) – A 3rd party Environmental Consultancy Validates the work performed by the Remediation firm and or offers guidance to achieve this [authenticates the work of the Remediator]
- Clearance Testing (CLT) – After the PRV, a 3rd party Environmental Consultancy Validates the work performed by the builder and related trades reinstated the property without recontamination. Clearing it for habitability [authenticates the completed project and all its components builder and related trades]
Of the list above, first to last, all offer a level of assurance and reduce the risk of future liability. Of these the Clearance Testing offers the greatest level of confidence that a building has returned to Balanced Built Flora or Normal Environmental Fungal Ecology.
RESILIENCE MOVING ON
While many of us cannot believe it has been a full year since Townsville once again blipped on our radars, others cannot wait to see the back of the place. As event related work begins to slow, one thing has become clear, weather events are good for industry growth. Not only for profitability but so too for exposure, research & development and maybe most importantly conversation. The building of an appropriate and adequate rhetoric that allows this fledgling industry to grow and become measurably reputable and positively renowned. One with sufficient and best-practice guidelines, peer-reviewed references, world-class training and industry-based accountability.
From all of this Industry bodies should confer with Insurance Councils and within themselves to establish minimum expectations for future events. This would pre-set the bar removing any attempts to undermine best practice in a time of chaotic pressures.
Importantly on the back of all of this growth and contention, commendation goes to those who worked tirelessly to help bring the Townsville community back safely onto their feet. It is also extended to those in Townsville going through these hardships, you have maintained yourselves with great resolve.
