ConstructionConstruction Safety Safety Green Design & Construction Understanding the effects on construction worker safety and health By John A. Gambatese, Sathyanarayanan Rajendran and Michael G. Behm

GREEN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION practices holistic view of green construction is needed—one are primarily aimed at minimizing environmental and that addresses safety and health over the entire life Gresource impacts and improving the safety, health and cycle of a constructed building—in order for the productivity of a building’s final occupants. The goal green process to be truly categorized as sustainable. of these practices is to create facilities that are sustain- Entities responsible for sustainable processes are able. Designing and constructing buildings using cur- seeking to evaluate and even take responsibility for rent sustainability practices may—or may not— their supply chain to ensure that inputs are as sustain- benefit construction worker safety and health. A neg- able as outputs (Kjaerheim, 2005; Lewis, 2005). The ative impact on construction worker safety and health construction process is the key supply chain compo- is of concern since, in terms of the aggregate number nent for green buildings. Therefore, if green construc- of fatalities, no industry experiences more fatalities tion is to be sustainable and safety is a key component than construction (BLS, 2006). of sustainability, evaluating and considering worker If an injury or fatality occurs during the construc- safety within the construction supply chain is a rea- tion of a green building, is the project sustainable? sonable expectation. Construction worker safety and Green building design focuses its attention to a large health is as important as that of the end-user. extent on the sustainability of the end users and the This article focuses on the impact of green design end use, while the process by which the building is and construction practices on the safety and health constructed is somewhat ignored and may not nec- of construction workers. It presents the concept of essarily be a truly sustainable process. Gilding, sustainability and the current drive toward green Humphries and Hogarth (2002) argue that many buildings, and describes the U.S. Green Building sustainability agendas are too narrowly focused on Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and environmental issues and ignore occupational safe- Environmental Design (LEED) rating system. Rating ty. The authors of this article propose that a more systems such as LEED are designed to evaluate how John A. Gambatese, Ph.D., P.E., is an associate professor in the Department “green” and, therefore, how sustainable, a project is. of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University However, these systems typically have little, if any, (OSU). He holds a B.S. and an M.S. in Civil Engineering, both from the University focus on the safety and health of those who construct of California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of the facilities. This issue is covered to support the stance Washington. During his career he has also held positions as a structural engineer that buildings should not be deemed “sustainable” and as a project engineer. Gambatese is a member of ASSE’s Columbia-Willamette without considering the construction safety and health Chapter and of the Society’s Construction and International practice specialties. element. The article also reviews a pilot study of an He is also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers LEED-rated project to provide insight to the industry’s and American Institute of Constructors. perspective on the proposed concept and highlights several green design features which affect construction Sathyanarayanan Rajendran, Ph.D., is a safety supervisor with Hoffman site safety and health. Finally, modifications to the Construction Co. in Portland, OR. He holds an undergraduate degree in civil LEED rating system that would enhance the safety and engineering from Anna University in India, and an M.S. and Ph.D. in Civil health of construction workers are discussed. Engineering, both from OSU. He is a member of ASSE’s Columbia-Willamette Chapter. Michael G. Behm, Ph.D., CSP, is an assistant professor in the occupational safety Sustainable Building Design & Construction program at East Carolina University. He holds a Ph.D. in Public Health from OSU. He Sustainable development can be defined as devel- is a professional member of ASSE’s Eastern Carolina and Philadelphia chapters and opment that meets the needs of the present without of the Society’s Construction and Academics practice specialties. compromising the ability of future generations to 28 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY MAY 2007 www.asse.org meet their own needs (World However, the terms Commission, 1987). The con- green and sustainable cept of sustainable develop- are not necessarily ment is further exhibited in synonymous although the following definitions: these two terms have •“Improving the quality been used inter- of human life while living changeably within the Abstract: This article within the carrying capacity construction industry. discusses the impact of of supporting ecosystems” Green is a term used to green design and con- (IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991). refer to primarily the struction on the safety •“Development that de- design and construc- and health of construc- livers basic environmental, tion practices that tion workers. It exam- social and economic services impact the environ- ines the concept of to all residences of a commu- ment (e.g., the soil, sustainability and the nity without threatening the water, air, plants and current drive toward viability of natural, built and animals). Sustainability green buildings, and social systems upon which is a broader concept describes the U.S. Green the delivery of those systems that, in addition to the Building Council’s depends” (ICLEI, 1996). environmental aspect, Leadership in Energy Sustainable buildings are addresses the continu- and Environmental considered by many to be ity of economic, re- Design rating system. those whose design and con- source and social The authors present the struction employ “green” aspects of human soci- results of a pilot study techniques that minimize ety. For a green build- conducted on a green environmental and resource ing to be sustainable, construction project and impacts, and contribute to the consideration must be propose several modifi- safety, health and productivi- given to more than cations to this system ty of their occupants. USGBC just protecting the that would enhance the recognizes buildings de- environment. safety and health of signed and constructed using In addition, a construction workers. green techniques by means of its LEED rating system, building can be called sustainable only if sustainabil- which was released in 2000. The system is a voluntary, ity principles are applied throughout its life cycle, consensus-based national standard for developing which includes all phases from planning and con- high-performance green buildings. Based on well- struction through the building’s end-of-life stage. founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state- Since control of performance outcomes typically of-the-art strategies for sustainable site development, exists only until the penultimate (maintenance and water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection operations) stage of a building and no knowledge and indoor environmental quality (USGBC, 2005a). about its end-of-life stage or its life span is available, Buildings that satisfy or exceed the green require- a building cannot be truly labeled as sustainable in ments posed by the LEED system are formally certi- the early stages of its life cycle. A building can only be fied by USGBC as sustainable. The system has four identified as more or less sustainable than another levels of certification based on the extent to which building, similar to the different levels of LEED certi- green features are incorporated: Certified, Silver, Gold fication. For each sustainable design and construc- and Platinum. The primary purpose of LEED certifi- tion feature added during the early stages (design, cation is to promote greener buildings—that is, to construction and operation) of a building, another reduce the environmental impacts of the building’s step is taken toward sustainability, but the facility is life cycle, which can be significant (USGBC, 2005a). not necessarily fully sustainable. LEED recognition is leading to changes in the way Safety & Health Impact owners, designers and contractors approach building of Green Buildings: A Pilot Study design, construction and operation. This change, and Green buildings are designed to incorporate envi- the motivation to attain LEED certification, can be attributed to several factors, including an enhanced ronmentally friendly practices in the project develop- public image for owners; the presence of more envi- ment process with the help of the LEED rating system. ronmentally friendly owners; use as a marketing tool Currently in all 50 states and in 13 countries world- for contractors; reduced operation and maintenance wide, 2,069 new construction projects have been regis- costs; and improved health of building occupants. tered with USGBC and 289 new construction projects have received LEED certification (USGBC, 2005b). Green Buildings & Sustainability This amounts to approximately 235 million gross The primary purpose of LEED certification is to square feet of building space (USGBC, 2005b). make buildings “greener.” By doing so, USGBC Analysts predict that the number of registered aims to reduce the environmental impacts of a build- projects will grow to 5,000 by the end of 2007 with ing’s life cycle and protect the health of the build- more than 1,000 LEED-certified projects during the ing’s occupants. same time. This is more than a 10-fold increase in the www.asse.org MAY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 29 tions will provide SH&E professionals in TableTable 1 1 the construction industry with knowledge to develop necessary actions to prevent Interview Questionnaire hazards associated with sustainable de- sign and construction practices. Question Response A pilot study was conducted to serve 1) What type of work do you perform on this as a preliminary investigation of the rela- project (e.g., masonry, concrete, steel)? tionship between green design and con- struction and construction worker safety 2) How long have you worked on this project? _____ days/months/years and health. The study aimed to address 3) Did you know that this building is being com- ❏ Yes ❏ No the following questions: missioned as a green building? •Does green building design and con- 4) Have you worked on other green building ❏ Yes ❏ No struction (LEED buildings) affect the safe- projects in the past? ty and health of construction workers? ❏ ❏ •If so, what green design and construc- 5) Do you know of any particular aspects of this Yes No tion practices affect worker safety and construction project that are being implemented as health, either positively or negatively? part of the green building process? If so, describe. •What are the project members’ per- 6) Do the aspects listed in Question 5 affect construc- ❏ Yes ❏ No spectives on the relationship between tion site safety or health in any way? If so, how? green building design and construction 7) With regard to construction site safety and ❏ Much safer practices and construction worker safety health, green building construction when compared ❏ A little safer and health? to conventional construction is: ❏ Same A preliminary literature search found ❏ Less safe no documents discussing the effects of ❏ Much less safe green design and construction on the safe- 8) Do you think that green designed buildings ❏ Yes ❏ No ty and health of construction workers. This should consider construction worker safety and may be attributed to the fact that the LEED health as part of the LEED accreditation process? rating system is relatively new (having Why or why not? been introduced in 2000), and studies of its effect on construction safety have yet to be ❏ ❏ 9) Has the fact that the building is a green building Yes No completed and published. However, the impacted your work in any way? If so, describe. inclusion of safety and health in sustain- ability concepts is recognized within the occupational safety and health community as imper- number of certified projects over year-end 2003 ative in order for sustainability to be addressed and (Yudelson, 2004). This intense movement toward achieved. Occupational safety and health issues are a sustainable design and construction represents a part of the social dimension in sustainability agen- major portion of the building industry’s activity, and das. No entity that presides over avoidable work- it might have major impacts on the safety and health place deaths, injuries or illnesses can ever claim to be of the workers who construct the buildings. sustainable (Gilding, Humphries & Hogarth, 2002). As noted, the LEED rating system has only mini- mal focus on construction worker safety and health. Project Description Only one element—indoor air quality (IAQ) manage- A construction project on the Oregon State ment during construction—addresses this facet. The University campus was used as the focus of the pilot intent of this element is to protect the workers and study. The project involved the construction of a building occupants from potential air quality prob- new, four-story, 146,000 square ft electrical engineer- lems during the construction or renovation process. ing/computer science building. The building was For example, the plan might include protection designed and constructed to the LEED Gold specifi- against dust formation in the heating, ventilation and cations for sustainability. Green features of the build- air conditioning (HVAC) duct systems that could ing include the following: trigger the growth of mold during construction. On •Natural ventilation is achieved by providing successful implementation of the plan, the project interior spaces with fresh air. will receive one LEED credit. Considering that the •IAQ is managed during construction to ensure maximum number of possible credits for a project is clean air for the workers. 69, one credit is almost negligible and underscores •Materials used emit no or low amounts of un- the minimal consideration given to construction pleasant or harmful vapors. worker safety and health in the LEED system. •Building systems are designed to require 35% This fact and the potential significant effect of less energy than in typical buildings. increased LEED presence in the industry leads to the •Classrooms, labs and offices are supplied with question, Do LEED buildings impact construction natural light, cutting energy costs by as much as 40%. worker safety and health? In addition, What is the •Earth-friendly concrete reduces CO2 emissions. impact, positive or negative, of LEED on safety and •Bio-planters “recycle” water runoff and provide health on construction sites? Answering these ques- outdoor seating. 30 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY MAY 2007 www.asse.org •Bicycle parking and on-site showers encourage provide their responses based on their experience on alternative modes of transportation. this project and, where relevant, the projects they have •Use of local construction materials reduces worked on in the past. The researchers recorded all transportation costs. responses to the questions. •Use of low-toxicity finishes, fiberboard and In addition to the focus-group interviews, project flooring minimizes volatile organic compound documentation was obtained from the general con- (VOC) off-gassing. tractor and reviewed to find any evidence of a con- •More than 90% of original materials on site were nection between green features and construction site recycled. hazards. Documentation reviewed included job haz- Data Collection & Analysis ard analyses (JHAs) prepared by the subcontractors; an LEED matrix showing the categories in which Data used for the pilot study were collected in each LEED point is obtained; and OSHA recordable two ways: focus-group interviews of project person- and lost-time injury/illness data. nel and reviews of project documentation. Partici- The researchers analyzed the data collected in the pants in focus-group interviews (typically four to six study using both quantitative and qualitative meth- per group) included on-site representatives, both ods. Quantitative analysis involved simple statistical management and labor, from the general contracting analyses. Since most of the questions were closed- and subcontracting firms working on the project. ended, frequency statistics were used to evaluate the These interviews were conducted periodically dur- responses. Open-ended questions were analyzed ing the course of construction (approximately once qualitatively to assess the participants’ perspectives of every 3 to 4 months) to obtain the participants’ per- the construction worker safety and health differences spectives and input on the impact of the project’s between LEED and non-LEED building projects. green building design and construction features on worker safety and health. Five rounds of interviews were conduct- TableTable 2 2 ed throughout the entire construction phase to obtain the views of different subcontrac- Distribution of tors who worked on the project at different times. Overall, 24 participants were inter- Participants by Trade viewed in the pilot study, some participat- ing in more than one focus group. Trade/profession Frequency % of participants To conduct the interviews, the re- General contractor 7 29.2 searchers used a written questionnaire composed of questions that solicited infor- Mechanical 4 16.7 mation regarding the following: 1) the Concrete 4 16.7 participant’s awareness, knowledge and Drywall 2 8.3 experience with constructing LEED build- ings; 2) the participant’s knowledge of the Electrical 2 8.3 green features included on the pilot build- Excavator 1 4.2 ing project; 3) the perceived positive Structural steel 1 4.2 and/or negative impacts of green features Window 1 4.2 on construction worker safety and health; 4) the relative safety and health perform- HVAC controls 1 4.2 ance between conventional and green Carpenter 1 4.2 buildings; and 5) any impacts of the green Total 24 100 building on their regular tasks. Table 1 shows the specific questions included in Note. n = 24. the questionnaire. The researchers conducted the focus- group interviews in the general contrac- TableTable 3 3 tor’s office trailer on the jobsite. Hard copies of the questionnaire were handed Green Building Awareness, Experience out to the participants at the start of the interview, allowing them time to read Survey question “Yes” response “No” response through the questions. The researchers then asked each question to the group and Did you know that this 20 (83.3%) 4 (16.7%) solicited responses. Participants were also building is being commis- asked to record their answers on the ques- sioned as a green building? tionnaire forms where appropriate to Have you worked on other 8 (33.3%) 16 (66.7%) ensure that their responses were recorded. green buildings before? Furthermore, the participants were individ- ually given a chance to answer each ques- Note. n = 24. tion verbally. Respondents were asked to www.asse.org MAY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 31 the project as part of TableTable 4 4 its design. The fol- lowing features were Safety & Health of Green Building Construction recognized by par- ticipants as being Response Frequency % of participants part of the building’s Much safer than conventional buildings 7 29.2 green features: •Recycling pro- A little safer than conventional buildings 12 50.0 gram. All of the The same as conventional buildings 5 20.8 recyclable waste ma- Less safe than conventional buildings 0 0.0 terials (e.g., plastic, wood and metal) Much less safe than conventional buildings 0 0.0 from the construc- Note. n = 24. tion activities are separated and accu- mulated in contain- Limitations ers on site for delivery to a recycling facility. One limitation of the methods used for this study •Rainwater collection system. Rainwater from is the presence of confounding variables that might the roof is collected and stored in the basement for affect worker safety and health even in the absence use in flushing toilets, cooling and irrigation. of the building being LEED registered. The two most •Low VOC-emitting paint. Paint that does not significant variables are described here. emit unpleasant and noxious fumes after its applica- First, the general contractor managing the project tion was used throughout the building. is certified to the ISO 14001 standard. This requires •Energy efficiency. High-efficiency electrical fix- the contractor to implement environmentally friend- tures and mechanical systems were used to mini- ly practices not only on LEED projects, but on all of mize energy use. its jobsites. Second, the general contractor is one of •Window heaters. Individually controlled ther- the safest in the U.S. The company’s established safe- mostats were installed in each office to allow for use- ty program contains many different elements that are specific temperature control. The windows were intended to identify and eliminate hazards regard- designed to be opened to allow for natural tempera- less of the green design objectives. These two vari- ture control. ables could influence the impact of LEED and the •Natural lighting. The large atrium in the center green design and construction practices on construc- of the building allows light to penetrate into the tion worker safety and health on the project studied. building’s interior areas and reduces the amount of Results artificial lighting required. Focus-group participants had varied back- •Solar panels. Solar panels for generating elec- grounds representing various trade specialties tricity were installed on the roof. Electricity is stored (Table 2, p. 31). Of those interviewed, the majority in batteries and used to help power the building’s represented the general contractor (29.2%), followed electrical needs. by mechanical and concrete subcontractors (16.7% •Regional materials. Construction materials were each). The length of time spent on the project of procured from suppliers within the local region to those interviewed ranged from 1 to 24 months minimize environmental and energy impacts of haul- (mean = 7.3 months; median = 5.5 months). ing heavy materials over long distances. General knowledge of LEED and experience con- •Waste diversion. When possible, waste materi- structing LEED projects among the focus group par- als from construction work were saved and used ticipants was evaluated using the responses to three elsewhere on the project or on another project rather different questions. In the initial stage of the interview, than simply discarded. participants were given the opportunity to state their •Permeable paving. Paved areas surrounding understanding of the green concept and the LEED rat- the building were designed to allow water to pene- ing system. Table 3 (p. 31) lists the additional specific trate through the paving. This helped to eliminate questions and provides a summary of the responses. the need for an extensive site stormwater system Most of those interviewed had knowledge of and to minimize the amount of additional runoff LEED. Twenty respondents (83%) indicated that into the city’s stormwater system. they knew that the current project was being built to •Reflective roof coating. A coating was applied be an LEED-certified building. Eight respondents to the roof to reflect the sunlight and minimize the (33%) stated that they had previous experience heat absorbed by the roof on hot days. This helps to working on a LEED-certified building, with one of prevent a heat island effect. these eight reporting that he had previously worked •IAQ plan. A plan was created to ensure a clean on several LEED buildings. source of air for the workers during construction. The focus-group interviews solicited input from Two questions were aimed directly at the effects the participants regarding the specific green design of green design and construction practices on con- and construction features actually implemented on struction worker safety and health (Table 1, p. 30, 32 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY MAY 2007 www.asse.org questions 6 and 7). Impact was consid- TableTable 5 5 ered to be either positive (improving Project Injury Data & Safety Performance safety and health) or negative (making Metric Pilot project Construction industry work more haz- Total workhours worked on the project 265,000 hours --- ardous). The indi- viduals interviewed Number of minor incidents (nonrecordable) 6 --- reported both posi- Number of OSHA recordable injuries 3 --- tive and negative OSHA recordable rate (number of recordable injuries 2.3 6.3 aspects, which are per 100 workers per year) summarized below. Number of lost-time injuries 0 --- Positive Aspects Lost-time rate (number of lost-time injuries per 100 0.0 3.4 •Good house- workers per year) keeping leads to less chance for trips, slips and falls. The recycling program resulted in a cleaner rating construction worker safety and health into the project site. Respondents felt that this was one of the LEED rating system. Nineteen participants (79.2%) cleanest projects on which they had worked. felt that construction worker safety and health should •Low VOC materials. Cleaner air provides a re- be considered; 4 (16.7%) responded “no”; and one par- duced health hazard to workers. ticipant did not answer the question. Responses to this •Painting. More consideration is given to the question are dependent on the participant’s knowl- time and location of painting in order to minimize edge of sustainability concepts, and the LEED rating the impact of the paint odor. system and certification process. One survey question asked, “Has the fact that the Negative Aspects building is a green building impacted your work in •Increased material handling. Waste materials any way?” Most of the responses received were from the construction process are gathered on the directed at the extra effort needed to separate and ground and manually separated according to type of recycle the waste materials generated on the project. material (e.g., wood, steel, plastics, glass). In some Comments received include: cases, material assemblies must be dismantled piece- •Yes, separating recyclable materials takes time. by-piece before separation. Once separated, the •Yes, shop for different sources of materials, materials are loaded into different containers. intangible value to owner, LEED documentation Recycling makes workers handle material two to required and more awareness. three more times than usual. Workers spend more •Yes, more cleaning required like vacuuming. time separating and moving materials than in a nor- •Yes, cleaner and safer, which means more pro- mal project, which creates the potential for strains, duction. sprains and punctures. •Yes, longer to clean up and separate material. •More dumpsters. The presence of multiple recy- cling dumpsters creates congestion on the jobsite Project Documentation near the material laydown and entry/exit areas. The researchers also reviewed project documen- •Atrium design. While the atrium provides natu- tation as part of the data collection process. JHAs ral light to interior areas of the building, it increased prepared by the subcontractors describe the hazards the duration of the work because scaffolding had to recognized by the subcontractors and how they plan be erected to the top of the four-story atrium. This to mitigate those dangers. JHAs for the following presented an increased risk of worker falls from the work were reviewed as part of the pilot study: extensive scaffolding system. •concrete forming and placement; •erection of tower crane; Comparisons to Conventional Construction •placement of underground utilities (steam, fire- One question solicited the participant’s judgment water, waste and vent piping); as to how green buildings compared to convention- •construction of interior partition walls; ally designed buildings in terms of construction site •HVAC duct installation; safety and health. Table 4 presents a summary of the •waterproofing; responses. Of those interviewed, 12 (50%) felt that •generator placement. green buildings were a little safer; 7 (29.2%) stated While the JHAs identified hazards associated that they were much safer; and 5 (20.8%) reported with the work, none of the identified hazards could that they were the same as conventional buildings in be attributed specifically to the project’s green terms of construction safety. None of the respon- design and construction features. For example, no dents felt that green buildings were less or much less JHA was prepared to address the safety and health safe to construct than conventional buildings. hazards associated with the material recycling pro- Another question elicited their opinion of incorpo- gram. Other JHAs did not address the potential haz- www.asse.org MAY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 33 ards when applying the reflective coating on the roof •One of the OSHA recordable injuries experi- or installing the solar panels. There was no evidence enced on the project (foot punctured by nail) was that hazards associated specifically with these green related to a green feature (material recycling). Again, features were recognized in the JHAs. While not this type of injury may occur on any project, not just confirmed, it is unlikely that those who prepared the on an LEED project. JHAs participated in the focus group interviews as The results of the pilot study provide indications part of the study. Therefore, it is not known whether that green buildings may have some negative effects Considering those who prepared the JHAs were aware that the on construction worker safety and health. However, building was designed as a green building. 19 of 24 interviewees (79%) felt that in general the con- the safety and The researchers obtained project safety perform- struction of green buildings was either a little or much ance data from the general contractor at the end of the safer than construction of conventional buildings. health of the project. These data included the number of OSHA These findings warrant additional investigation. As a recordable and lost-time injuries on the project and the result of this pilot study, the authors are in the process workers who details of each incident. The total number of worker of conducting a detailed research study on many hours was also obtained in order to calculate the LEED-rated projects nationwide to understand these are part of a recordable and lost-time injury rates. Table 5 (p. 33) effects and provide more evidence on the subject. The summarizes the project’s safety performance data and results of this additional study are forthcoming. building’s life presents the national injury rates for the construction industry as a whole for comparison (BLS, 2006). This Analyzing the Rating System cycle would comparison shows that safety performance on this Another approach is to analyze the LEED rating project was better than the industry’s national average. system thoroughly and look for ways to change it in take green The researchers gathered information on the order to incorporate safety and health. When re- three recordable injuries that occurred during the viewing the system and its various green features, buildings one project in order to evaluate those injuries in terms of two questions come to mind: their relation to the green building design and con- 1) If green design and construction practices cause step closer to struction features. The three recordable injuries were negative impacts on construction worker safety and as follows: health, how can these impacts be countered? sustainability. •Hand scalded. A pipe fitting was not put on tight- 2) How can LEED-certified buildings be taken ly enough and came off with the flow of hot water. one step closer to sustainability? •Slip on concrete roof. Slippery surface was Sustainable Construction Safety & Health caused by morning dew on the roof (not by the One way to enhance construction safety and reflective roof coating). health within the context of sustainability is to con- •Foot punctured by nail. Worker was breaking sider construction worker safety and health in addi- down (taking apart) wood pallets for separation of tion to the health of the final occupants. Since waste materials into different recycling bins. sustainable concepts address the environmental, The puncture injury reinforces the concern about economic and social well-being of human society, increased material handling raised during the focus- considering the safety and health of the workers group interviews. The added effort required for the who are part of a building’s life cycle would take recycling process increases the amount of material green buildings one step closer to sustainability. This handling, creating a hazard that would not be pres- concept can be thought of as “sustainable construc- ent on construction sites which do not have recy- tion safety and health.” Apart from serving as a cling programs. strategy to reach sustainable construction safety and health, this concept will also help to mitigate any Pilot Study Conclusions negative impacts created by LEED buildings. The pilot study provided a preliminary view of Worker safety and health plays a major role in the effects of green design and construction practices achieving sustainable socioeconomic development in on construction worker safety and health. The fol- the construction industry. The sustainable safety and lowing findings can be drawn from the study: health concept, which considers the social and eco- •Current literature does not provide evidence of nomic well-being of construction workers, is a new the impact of green design and construction on the approach to boosting their safety and health perform- safety and health of construction workers. ance. This concept aims to sustain the construction •Some features of green buildings designed and worker’s safety and health 1) from start to finish of a constructed to meet the LEED rating system, such as single project; 2) for each future project in which the the construction material recycling programs, may worker is involved; and 3) during the worker’s re- negatively affect the safety of construction workers, maining lifetime after retirement, without any injuries while others, such as the use of low VOC materials, or illnesses as a result of the construction work. may help to eliminate construction site health haz- For example, the work lives of many construction ards. It should be noted, however, that these hazards workers have been shortened by repeated physical may occur on any project, not just on an LEED project. hazards posed by exposure to lead, silica, asbestos •Project personnel predominantly felt that green and many other chemical and environmental haz- building projects were a little safer than convention- ards (Hill, 2003). The condition persists even after al building projects. the exposure ends (as in when the worker quits the 34 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY MAY 2007 www.asse.org job or is reassigned). The worker’s health could have Conclusion been sustained had s/he been properly protected Construction workers are exposed to many haz- from the exposure or had the hazard been eliminat- ards and face significant risk of work-related fatality ed in the first place. Several elements, if properly or injury/illness. Construction safety and health implemented in a project development process, can research over the past several decades has helped to help sustain worker safety and health. The sustain- improve the safety and health performance of work- able safety and health concept approaches the con- ers. The advent of green design and construction in sideration and implementation of safety and health the U.S. has changed the way buildings are designed measures from a different perspective. and constructed. The pilot study described in this A New Rating System article provides suggestive evidence of both positive and negative impacts of green practices on worker To implement this concept in the construction safety and health. Further research is needed to doc- industry, the authors are developing a sustainable ument all such effects associated with green build- construction safety and health rating system. This ings. While the positive effects can be appreciated, rating will incorporate the safety and health ele- the negative effects should be eliminated. ments to be implemented to sustain worker safety If current green design and construction practices and health from project to project. The rating system have negative effects on worker safety and health, will provide an opportunity to rate projects based on those concerns can be mitigated through the integra- the importance given to and implementation of tion of the sustainable construction safety and health those elements that promote worker safety and concept within green design and construction prac- health. Publication and presentation of the rating tices. This combination will result in an integrated system are forthcoming. environment, safety and health rating system. This Many parties are involved in the construction system is envisioned to provide a new perspective process: the owner, contractors, subcontractors, sup- on the way industry practitioners view safety and pliers, sureties, financial agencies, architects, engi- health. Attaining injury-free environments and sus- neers and others. The foundation of the rating system taining the effort in the construction industry will is the combination of the safety and health initiatives require a team effort. This rating system will fulfill typically implemented by the major parties (owners, the purpose of “building toward sustainable safety designers, contractors and subcontractors). and health” by uniting the safety and health initia- The system will be categorized into several sus- tives of all major parties in a project. Ⅲ tainable safety and health elements that will carry credits based on the frequency and severity of the References issue they address. The credits under these categories Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2006). Census of fatal and non- will be combined to derive a total credit score for the fatal injuries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Author. project. A project that incorporates more initiatives Gilding, P., Humphries, R. & Hogarth, M. (2002). Safe compa- would receive more credits. The premise of the rating nies: A practical path for “operationalizing” sustainability. Sydney, Australia: Ecos Corp. system is that a higher number of total points re- Hill, D.C., ed. (2003). Construction safety management and engi- ceived by a project would indicate a lower potential neering. Des Plaines, IL: ASSE. for incidents. The sustainable safety and health ele- International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ments that are part of the rating system will come (ICLEI). (1996). Local agenda 21 planning guide: An introduction from two sources: literature and industry experts. to sustainable development planning. Toronto, Ontario: Author. Kjaerheim, G. (2005). Cleaner production and sustainability. The rating system can be used as a tool to help Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 329-339. sustain the safety and health of construction work- Lewis, H. (2005). Defining product stewardship and sustain- ers. It will unite and coordinate the efforts of the dif- ability in the Australian packaging industry. Environmental Science ferent parties on a project. In the past, safety has and Policy, 8, 45-55. United States Green Building Council (USGBC). (2005a). primarily rested on the constructor’s shoulders. U.S. Green Building Council. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved Many construction companies have developed pos- Oct. 2005, from http://www.usgbc.org. itive safety cultures and are committed to creating USGBC. (2005b). An introduction to the U.S. Green Building Council an injury-free work environment on each project. and the LEED Green Building Rating System. Washington, DC: Author. World Commission on Environment and Development. However, no recognition, such as a gold or platinum (1987). Our common future. The Brundtland Report. New York: safety certification, exists for those constructors who Oxford University Press. stand out in their commitment to reduce workplace World Conservation Union (IUCN), United Nations Environ- fatalities and injuries. ment Program (UNEP) & World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). (1991). Caring for the earth: A strategy for sustainable living. Gland, This rating system can be used (in a manner sim- Switzerland: Authors/ London: Earthscan. ilar to LEED) to rate projects based on the safety Yudelson, J. (2004). Perspective: Forecasting market demand for commitment of its team members. Recognition for green buildings 2004-2007. Environmental Design and Construction. using the rating system will be an added incentive to the project team to improve the project’s safety and health performance. Since the rating system would Acknowledgments require the joint efforts of all involved, a team effort The authors acknowledge the general contractor and subcontractor would be another benefit that will help set in motion companies involved in the pilot study. The authors appreciate their the sustainable safety and health drive in the con- interest, and the time and effort given to participating in the study, struction industry. and for allowing this study to be conducted on the project. www.asse.org MAY 2007 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY 35