Synergist - November 2010

concrete materials containing coal ash will be exposed to respirable toxics. Truly green principles would identify the potential for construction exposures and factor them into decision making. Use of this product should, at the very least, include dust suppression, adequate ventilation systems, and consideration of the product’s lifecycle, such as what happens to the material during and after the demolition phase.

Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) in insulation. SPF is a very hazardous green product with narrow sustainability benefits. Valued for its potential to increase energy efficiency, SPF poses significant risks to installers, maintenance workers and firefighters. It also hermetically seals buildings, trapping nuisance odors and toxics, and must be ventilated mechanically rather than naturally. OSH professionals are needed to advise substitution to a less hazardous insulator or process, where appropriate.

Costs

The unique beauty of the green and sustainability movement is that it makes moral stewardship of Mother Earth paramount. It is value-driven, not necessarily governed by regulatory requirements. The long-term benefits from energy efficiency are understood, and being environmentally friendly is becoming very marketable. Cost used to be the most criticized feature about constructing environmentally friendly buildings, but green building is showing that it pays for itself. Most green buildings cost a premium of about two percent but can yield ten times as much savings over the entire life of the building. 11 Higher energy costs, in addition to green marketing, have helped persuade the public that savings throughout a green building’s lifecycle are worth the higher up-front cost.

Cost, however, is still the reason most often cited by owners, contractors and designers for not ensuring safety beyond the minimum regulatory requirements. The costs are still there, but we need to look with a wider lens. When workers are injured the costs are shifted from contractors and owners to workers, their families, and taxpayers, who pay for disability benefits and health care. It’s time to convince the public and building occupants of the benefits of buildings whose costs aren’t measured in workers’ lives.

If the experience of the green movement is indicative, segments of society, if marketed to correctly, would accept the marginally higher up-front costs associated with occupying facilities designed with enhanced occupational safety and health in mind because of their long-term savings and contribution to the public welfare. Where the tipping point of acceptance lies is uncertain, but it is clear that the surge in interest to build green provides an excellent opportunity to make the case for occupational health and safety sustainability in construction.

Green Values

An emphasis on energy and resource efficiency, reduction of carbon emissions and a lessened environmental impact from building green is already underway. However, the construction industry’s commitment to sustainability is unaccomplished without an accounting of its impact on the safety and health of workers who build, retrofit, and demolish the structures. For construction to deserve “green” acclaim, it must reduce the hazards confronting workers by making an unreserved effort to an-

INSIGHT | DEPARTMENT

ticipate, recognize and control them. Embracing a long-term perspective, sustainability principles incorporate a high regard for life and our collective responsibility to the environment. It’s time to apply those same values to the lives of workers, too.

WalterJonesistheassociatedirectorofOccupationalSafetyandHealthat Laborers’HealthandSafetyFundofNorthAmerica,Washington,D.C.Hecanbe reachedatwjones@lhsfna.org.

IngridX.Zubieta,formerlyanenvironmentalhealthandsafetyspecialistatthe UCLA-LaborOccupationalSafetyandHealthProgram,LosAngeles,Calif.,re-cently joined Health Science Associates in Los Alamitos, Calif. She can be reachedatixzubieta@gmail.com.

Resources

1. Las Vegas Sun: “Construction Deaths.” [Online] Available at www.lasvegassun.com/news/topics/construction-deaths/ (Accessed Sept. 1, 2010).

2. McAllister, Patrick M., and Franz Fuerst: “New Evidence on the Green Building Rent and Price Premium” (April 3, 2009). [Online] Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1372440 ( Accessed September 1, 2010).

3. Gambatese, John: “Don’t Leave Safety Out of Sustainability.” Engineering News-Record, Nov. 18, 2009.

4. Bureau of Labor Statistics: “Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities” [Online] Available at www.bls.gov/iif/osh_nwrl.htm#cfoi (Accessed Sept. 1, 2010).

5. Schulte, P.A.: Characterizing the burden of occupational injury and disease. J Occup Environ Med 47( 6):607–622 (2005).

6. Rajendran, S., J. Gambatese, and M. Behm: Impact of green building design and construction on worker safety and health. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 135( 10):1058 (2009).

7. New York City Department of Environmental Protection: “Notice of Adoption of Rules for Citywide Construction Noise Mitigation.” [Online] Available at http://nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/ noise_constr_rule.pdf (Accessed Sept. 1, 2010).

8. Green Resource Center: “High Volume Fly Ash Concrete.” [Online] Available at www.greenresourcecenter.org/ MaterialSheets Word/FlyAshConcrete.pdf (Accessed Sept. 1, 2010).

9. Kats, Greg, Leon Alevantis, Adam Berman, Evan Mills, and Jeff Perlman: “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force” (October 2003).