Worker Safety on LEED Projects Questioned

2 replies [Last post]
LEED AP BD+C, Editorial Director – LEEDuser BuildingGreen, Inc. Mar 15 2012 LEEDuser Moderator Post a Comment

A new study out of the University of Colorado–Boulder suggests that LEED buildings are more likely to place construction workers in danger than are their conventional counterparts. While the results of the new study, to be published in April 2012 in the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, are getting a skeptical view among the LEED community, the authors insist that the effect of design choices on the safety of construction workers should be a stronger consideration for architects.

The study, “Identification of Safety Risks for High Performance Sustainable Construction Projects,” doesn’t show that LEED construction sites are less safe. Nor does a 2009 study in the same journal that it cites, which gathered Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) incident rate data from green and non-green projects. However, the authors of the new study say that they found enough suggestive evidence in the data set from the 2009 study that they wanted to establish just what it is about LEED projects that might be less safe.

The authors of the new study sought to document what LEED credits could be associated with design choices and construction practices that could potentially elevate injury rates. They did this by interviewing members of LEED design and construction teams on Colorado projects.

One of the risks most often cited by these teams was the potential for overexertion through elements introduced to earn LEED credits: larger windows for daylighting, more ventilation systems, more piping installations for water reuse, and more insulation. According to study coauthor Matthew Hallowell, Ph.D., assistant professor at the University of Colorado, critics of the study have seized upon details like this to say it’s simply about “more work” and that having an HVAC contractor stay onsite for an extra week to install more ductwork hardly seems like a dangerous working condition.

Hallowell prefers to focus on other reported risks, however: “It's more time working near excavation, more time working at heights—more time working in dangerous situations,” he says. For example, although inherently hazardous rooftop work is a part of any construction project, Hallowell says that workers installing rooftop solar panels or handling heavy reflective roofing membranes on LEED projects are in those situations for longer periods, putting them at greater risk. On the plus side, the study found that use of low-VOC adhesives and construction air quality management plans should improve worker conditions, and that many LEED credits, such as those involving tracking of materials purchases, should not affect worker safety.
“There is a lot of research out there showing that the decisions made during design have a great impact on safety and health onsite,” Hallowell told me. Meanwhile, he notes, “OSHA places the burden of safety on the contractors. There is a disconnect there.”

Brendan Owens, vice president of LEED technical development at the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), told me that while the study was surprising to him, USGBC has been working with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and wants to find opportunities to increase worker safety as part of the LEED equation. He cautions, however, that LEED shouldn’t try to replicate OSHA regulations and other safety rules.

The biggest safety-related revision coming in LEED 2012, Owens says, will affect non-U.S. projects. There are greater concerns in places “where no worker safety standards currently exist and where no tracking exists as a routine matter.” LEED 2012 will have a minimum program requirement for projects outside the U.S. to document the safety and training activities that are occurring on LEED projects.

Hallowell hopes to see more specific improvements in the future. “It’s not the LEED credit itself but the design methods and construction strategies,” he says. Therefore, he’d like to see credit-specific measures, such as use of walkpads for roofs where slippery reflective membranes are being worked on.

“Should the LEED framework be held responsible for safety issues? No,” says Yancy Wright, director at Sellen Sustainability, who argues that worker training is the key ingredient. Citing vegetated roofs as an example, Wright said, “Anytime you initiate a new construction practice or building system, it introduces tradespeople to new situations, and there is the potential for a higher risk of incident.” Wright’s firm is working on training materials targeting new construction practices occurring on LEED and non-LEED projects.

What are your experiences around safety issues on LEED projects? Are you seeing safer projects, or have there been issues?

2 Comments

0
0
Ricardo Sobral Technical Services Director Lend Lease (AR) S.A.
Mar 20 2012
LEEDuser Member
546 Thumbs Up

Not that so

I work for an international project and construction company implementing LEED certification. In my company, safe & safety issues are almost a dogma. I have not experienced relevant issues in the projects I supervise in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, neither from my fellow collegues in the rest of the countries (mainly Europe and Asia). Moreover, Health & Safety professionals tend to thank me on the strategies for SSp1 and IEQc3.1, since they feel they add value to the project. I would not say that having to install devices on rooves make LEED projects more dangerous than standard ones. Risks due to installation exist no matter the standard of the project, and we have not experienced a raise in near-misses, incidents or injuries in certified projects.

1
1
0
Eric Shamp Principal, Ecotype Consulting Mar 20 2012 LEEDuser Expert 539 Thumbs Up

I am not disputing that risk varies between various construction practices, with some more dangerous than others. However, it is curious and tenuous that the authors of the study are attempting to link the entire LEED Rating System to worker safety. It seems so much more obvious and direct to study the link between safety and specific systems, such as vegetated roofing, PV systems, stormwater management, and the like. Since these supposedly "dangerous-to-install" systems are commonly applied on both LEED and non-LEED projects alike, why pick on LEED? If I design all of those features on a non-LEED project, am I less liable? Frankly, it is a strong indication of a bias (or possibly even an agenda?) against LEED. It is additionally troubling that there is an attempt to breach the legal firewall between design liability, which is entirely the architect's responsibility, and worker safety, which is entirely the contractor's responsibility. All architects, whether they work on LEED projects or not, should be VERY concerned about this study gaining any traction in the construction risk management community, and the AIA and USGBC should consider a strong rebuttal. If my liability insurance has to cover worker safety, I can't afford it any more.

Post a Reply

Start a new LEED comment thread

Jun 18 2013
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

Copyright 2013 – BuildingGreen, Inc.