An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety During Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction

An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction

Tanyel Bulbul, PhD

430C Bishop-Favrao Hall, Department of Building Construction, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 24061. Phone: (540) 231-5017; E-mail: [email protected]

An Analysis of Construction Worker Safety during Building Decommissioning and Deconstruction

Abstract:

Keywords: building deconstruction, worker safety, building decommissioning

1. Introduction

A building’s end-of-lifecycle operations include various activities from decommissioning and remodeling to deconstruction and demolition. According to the United States Energy Information Administration (US EIA) 74% of all commercial buildings in the US are built before 1990 and 17% built before 1945 (CBECS, 2003). Similarly, 76% of all the housing units are built before 1990 and 19% is built before 1950 (RECS, 2005). Since the US building stock is relatively old, demolition or deconstruction of buildings to open space for new construction or, building renovation for new purposes have a significant impact on the construction industry. For example, in 2006, residential and commercial building renovation activities cost 36% ($438 billion) of the all building construction activities ($1.22 trillion) (DOE, 2006).

Building end-of-lifecycle operations also cause the construction industry to produce one of the largest shares of waste in the US. In 1998, 136 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste was produced in the US. 48 percent of the waste came from demolition and 44 percent was generated through renovations (Franklin Associates 1998). A preliminary estimate claims that more than 160 million tons of C&D waste was generated in 2003, of which nearly 42 percent came from demolition activities and 49 percent was produced by renovation activities (EPA 2008, EPA 2009). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that only 40 percent of C&D waste was reused, recycled, or sent to energy facilities, while the remaining 60 percent of the materials was sent to C&D landfills. From environmental sustainability perspective, there is a growing interest to divert building materials away from landfill disposal and provide cost savings and avoidance of virgin material use through reuse and recycling (Kibert and Chini 2000, Chini 2001, Chini and Shultman 2002, Chini 2003, Chini 2005, Crowther 2001, Crowther 2002, Durmisevic 2006, Hurley et al. 2002, Guy and Shell 2002, Hinze 2002, Te Dorsthorst and Kowalczyk 2002, Dorsthorst and Durmisevic 2003). In comparison to demolition, deconstruction is an effective way for reducing raw material consumption and protecting embodied energy in building materials. When buildings reach the end of their useful life, they are decommissioned and either renovated for new purposes or demolished and hauled to landfills. Demolition of a building through explosives or wrecking-ball style is convenient and offers a quick way for clearing the site. However, this method creates a significant amount of C&D waste and landfill costs. Deconstruction is defined as the process of selectively dismantling a building or parts of a building in order to salvage the materials for reuse, recycling, or waste management (Guy and Gibeau 2003).

This paper reports the initial findings from our pilot research on understanding construction worker safety issues in building end-of-lifecycle operations specifically decommissioning and deconstruction. Although deconstruction is more environmentally friendly than demolition, it is more labor intensive and it requires more careful planning for critical health and safety issues. Early planning involves complex activities such as collecting and analyzing various information that is coming from different sources related to the existing structure. Deconstruction activities involve many of the safety hazards associated with the construction. On top of that, all building end-of-lifecycle operations have safety risks due to the unknown condition of the building. These might be caused by deviations from the original design and missing as-built information, unapproved updates, unknown state of construction materials, strength or weakness issues with the structure etc.

2. Significance

In simple terms, deconstruction is the reverse of the construction process, but it shows differences according to the condition and location of the building and building materials involved. In comparison to demolition, which generates waste for landfills, deconstruction produces materials that can be used again or remanufactured into higher- value goods. Two distinct types of deconstruction can take place on a project—non- structural and structural. Non-structural deconstruction is the removal for reuse of any building contents that do not affect the structural integrity. Materials such as cabinetry, windows/doors, and appliances can be salvaged relatively easily with minimum safety concerns. Structural deconstruction consists of more involved recovery activities that are harder to implement and contribute to the structural integrity of the building. Salvaged materials consist of roof systems, wood timbers and beams, brick and masonry elements, and framing (EPA 2001).

Increasing awareness of environmental safety and the need for properly disposing the potentially harmful waste, such as asbestos or other chemicals, requires buildings to be appropriately decommissioned at the end of their lifecycle. The environmental characteristics of building materials are an important issue that needs to be carefully tracked through the building lifecycle. In comparison to the construction processes, decommissioning and deconstruction deals with significantly different waste and debris that is more likely to be contaminated by potentially hazardous substances such as lead paints, stains, and adhesives. The physical and chemical composition of a material can be altered through the surface treatment and maintenance applications. For example, finished wood has a different composition from raw wood. The chipping or shredding of finished wood during recycling can expose people to the hazardous substances such as lead-based paint. (Dolan et al. 1999).

3. Methodology

One of the most critical building end-of-lifecycle operations are being done recently on the surrounding buildings of the World Trade Center (WTC) site after September 11. Five buildings on the immediate vicinity of WTC are decided to come down due to the structural damages: 130 Liberty Street, 4 Albany Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 30 West Broadway-Fiterman Hall. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) coordinated the federal, state and city agencies to ensure that the impacted buildings are decommissioned and deconstructed in a manner that protects the health of people who live and work in the area. Due to the nature of the event, all documentation related to these demolition and deconstruction events are publicly available from EPA’s web site and collected for the purpose of this research. Four of these buildings, 130 Liberty Street, 130 Cedar Street, 133-135 Greenwich Street, 30 West Broadway-Fiterman Hall, have very detailed documentation of their operations. Although the nature of decommissioning and deconstruction was very different for all four buildings, the basic regulatory submittal included the following documents: work plan, environmental air monitoring plan, health and safety plan and waste management plan. In addition to these documents every project has building specific information such as quality assurance plans, façade characterization reports, environmental characterization reports, scaffold erection operations etc. In this research, we specifically focused on health and safety plans to learn from how construction worker safety issues are addressed in these cases.

4. Findings

The analysis of health and safety planning documents for all cases show that although they are prepared for different deconstruction projects they are more similar than different. The content of these documents is grouped under nine topics:

Site security, entrance to site, decontamination section describes the work zones in the site, entrance and exit procedures for containment areas, emergency access, and security protocol together with general building access and perimeter security. Equipment and personnel decontamination procedures are listed as well as contamination prevention methods.

Personnel training procedures are explained in detail in all four documents. This section covers basic site orientation, visitor orientation and safety meetings together with general health and safety awareness training, safe work permit, asbestos training and Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Standard (HAZWOPER) training.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) section describes the requirements of PPE for different tasks. Level D, Level C and Level B PPE work is expected in the site but Level A description is also provided as a precaution. Basic safety equipment descriptions involve respiratory protection and protective clothing.

Personnel responsibilities part lists key personnel for the project and their contact information

Hazard assessment, risk analysis is the most detailed topic in all four health and safety plans. This part of the document explains physical, chemical or biological hazards in the site and also gives a risk analysis for tasks involved in the work plan.

Air monitoring is part of the safety measures of these end-of-lifecycle operations since the project takes place in a very dense urban environment and all four buildings are heavily contaminated with the dust from the collapse of two towers. The monitoring involves total suspended particulate (TSP), asbestos, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury, lead, silica, cadmium and chromium.

Incident reporting, emergency reporting procedures differ in four cases with their scope. The basic emergency reporting involves the call to first responders through 911. In more detailed processes involve incident investigation, root cause analysis and incident record keeping with a copy of the OSHA 300 log.

Emergency planning is listed in all documents with possible emergency scenarios such as fire, explosion, power or structural failure together with evacuation plans and site logistics.

Communication section involves labeling and material safety data sheets together with general communication procedures, radio and telephone usage, emergency warning and hand signals.

In addition to these procedure descriptions, health and safety planning documents also give references to the various regulations that need to be followed during the decommissioning and deconstruction of buildings. In Table 1, 2 and 3 the regulations that are addressed in four documents are listed. The first group is the federal regulations that are identified by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the second group is local regulations of New York City and the third group of regulations is from other institutions which might not be directly related to the worker safety. The amount of regulations involved in these operations show the complexity of tasks as well as the depth of planning that is required before starting the deconstruction. In some cases such as asbestos regulations or hazardous materials there are more than one regulations at different levels and a careful planning is required to identify possible conflicting or overlapping specifications.

Table 1: Combined list of OSHA regulations referenced in four cases Federal OSHA Regulations for General Federal OSHA Construction Regulations Industry (29 CFR 1910) (29 CFR 1926)

- Subpart C (General Safety and Health - Subpart C (General Safety and Health Concerns) Provisions) - Subpart D (Walking and Working - Subpart CC (Cranes and Derricks) Surfaces) - Subpart D (Occupational Health and - Subpart E (Means of Egress) Health Environmental Control) and Safety Plan - Subpart E (Personal Protective and - Subpart G (Occupational Health and Lifesaving Equipment) Environmental Control) - Subpart F (Fire Protection and - Subpart H _ 120 (Hazardous waste Prevention) operations and emergency response) - Subpart G (Signs, Signals, and - Subpart I (Personal Protective Barricades) Equipment) - Subpart H (Materials Handling, - Subpart J (General Environmental Storage, Use and Disposal) Controls) - Subpart I (Tools-Hand and Power) - Subpart K (Medical and First Aid) - Subpart J _ 354 (Welding/Cutting on - Subpart L (Fire Protection) surfaces covered by protective - Subpart P (Hand and Portable Power coatings) Tools) - Subpart K (Electrical) - Subpart S (Electrical) - Subpart L (Scaffolding) - Subpart Z (Toxic and Hazardous - Subpart M _ 500 and 502 (Personal Fall Substances) Arrest Systems) - Subpart N _ 502 (Materials Hoists, Personnel Hoists and Elevators) - Subpart P _ 650 (Excavation) - Subpart T (Demolition) - Subpart X (Stairways and Ladders) - Subpart Z _ 1101 (Asbestos) - Subpart Z _ 1127 (Cadmium)

Table 2: Combined list of local regulations referenced in four cases Local Asbestos Licensing Regulations - The State of New York Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control asbestos regulations. - The State of New York Department of Asbestos Licensing Regulation - City of New York Asbestos Licensing Authority - New York State Department of Labor Industrial Code Rule 56 (ICR-56) (proper identification, handling, removal, and disposal of ACM in public buildings)

New York City Local Law 45 of 198 (Designating a qualified specialist as a site-safety coordinator for all phases of construction) New York City Building Code Subchapter 19 (Safety of Public and Property During Construction Operations) City of New York Department of Licenses and Inspections (Building Permit and Contractor Licensing Regulations

Table 3: Combined list of regulations from other institutions referenced in four cases U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR) (40-hour Radiation Protection Procedures and Investigative Methods (10 CFR 1912))

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations

- 40 CFR Subchapter C - 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart A (General Provisions) - 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M (National Emission Standard for Asbestos) - US EPA 40 CFR Subchapter 1 - 40 CFR Part 241, (Guidelines for the Land Disposal of Solid Wastes) - 40 CFR Part 257, (Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices) - US EPA 40 CFR Subchapter R Health and Safety Plan - 40 CFR Part 763, (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act)

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Publications

- Z9.2, (Fundamentals Governing the Design and Operation of Local Exhaust Systems) - Z88.2, (Practices for Respiratory Protection)

Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL) Publications 586 (Test Performance of High Efficiency, Particulate, Air Filters Units) National Electric Code (Latest Edition) American Society for Testing and Materials E 1368-99, (Standard Practice for Visual inspection of Asbestos Abatement Projects National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 701, (Standard Methods of Fire Test for Flame-Resistant Textiles and Films)

5. Conclusion and Summary In this paper we report from our initial study on the decommissioning and deconstruction of four buildings surrounding the WTC in New York City, which were damaged needed to come down after September 11. Our analysis shows that the health and safety planning for deconstruction of these buildings required detailed information about the buildings’ condition and a careful preparation for expected or unexpected events. In comparison to construction, worker safety issues are different in the deconstruction operation because of various variables such as structural instability, hazardous materials and contamination problems.

6. References

CBECS (2003) Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, 2003 Building Characteristics Data Tables (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/detailed_tables_2003.html)

Chini, A. (2001) Deconstruction and Materials Reuse: Technology, Economic, and Policy. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB World Building Congress, CIB Report, Publication 266, Wellington, New Zealand.

Chini, A. Shultman, F. (2002) Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Chini, A. (2003) Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB World Building Congress, CIB Report, Publication 287, Gainesville, Florida.

Chini, A. (2005) Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. CIB Report, Publication 300

Crowther, P. (2001) Developing an Inclusive Model for Design for Deconstruction. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB World Building Congress, CIB Report, Publication 266, Wellington, New Zealand.

Crowther, P. (2002) Design for Buildability and the Deconstruction Consequences. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Durmisevic, E. (2006) Transformable Building Structures. PhD Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

DOE (2006) Department of Energy, Buildings Energy Data Book (http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ChapterView.aspx?chap=1)

Dolan, P. Lampo, R. Dearborn, J. (1999) Concepts for Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste. US Army Corps of Engineers Research Laboratories Technical Report 97/58.

EPA (2008) Recover your Resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency, Report No. EPA-560-F-08-242.

EPA (2009) Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Amounts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Report No. EPA530-R-09-002.

EPA (2001) Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pollution Prevention Program Office, Office of Policy and Management, Report No. EPA-904-C- 08-001.

Franklin Associates (1998) Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division Office of Solid Waste, Report No. EPA530-R-98-010.

Guy, B. Gibeau, E. (2003) A Guide to Deconstruction. Deconstruction Institute Publication, Charlotte County Florida.

Guy, B. Shell, S. (2002) Design for Deconstruction and Materials Reuse. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Hurley, J. Goodier, C. Garrod, E. Grantham, R. Lennon, T. Waterman, A. (2002) Design for Deconstruction – Tools and Practices. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Hinze, J. (2002) Designing for Deconstruction Safety. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Kibert, C. Chini, A. (2000) Overview of Deconstruction in Selected Countries. CIB Report, Publication 252. RECS (2005) Residential Energy Consumption Survey, 2005 Housing Characteristics Tables (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2005/hc2005_tables/detailed_tables2005.html)

Te Dorsthorst, B. Kowalczyk, T. (2002) Design for Recycling. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB Report, Publication 272, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Te Dorsthorst, B. Durmisevic, E. (2003) Building’s Transformation Capacity as the Indicator of Susainability; Transformation Capacity of Sustainable Housing. Proceedings of the CIB Task Group 39 – Deconstruction Meeting, CIB World Building Congress, CIB Report, Publication 287, Gainesville, Florida.