<%BANNER%>

Impacts of Selected Sustainable Building Components on Construction Worker Safety

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042172/00001

Material Information

Title: Impacts of Selected Sustainable Building Components on Construction Worker Safety
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Olson, Brent
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, green, insulated, photovoltaic, single, sustainable, worker
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: IMPACTS OF SELECTED SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COMPONENTS ON CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY Brent Olson P: (321) 302-1820 E-mail: brent.olson85@gmail.com Department: Building Construction Committee chair: Dr. Jimmie W. Hinze Degree: Master of Science in Building Construction Graduation Date: June 2010 This study sought to identify the health and safety hazards associated with constructing specific building components of a sustainable structure. The safety and health hazards associated with the sustainable building components were then compared to the health and safety hazards associated with constructing the conventional building component. The intent was to determine whether there is a negative or positive impact of the sustainable products on worker safety. With building construction shifting towards sustainability, emphasis must be given to the safety of workers that construct these newer sustainable products. This will allow for future construction of sustainable building components to be more aware of the safety and health hazards associated to help prevent future injuries to workers who construct them.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brent Olson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Local: Co-adviser: Sullivan, James.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042172:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042172/00001

Material Information

Title: Impacts of Selected Sustainable Building Components on Construction Worker Safety
Physical Description: 1 online resource (78 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Olson, Brent
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2010

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: building, green, insulated, photovoltaic, single, sustainable, worker
Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: IMPACTS OF SELECTED SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COMPONENTS ON CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY Brent Olson P: (321) 302-1820 E-mail: brent.olson85@gmail.com Department: Building Construction Committee chair: Dr. Jimmie W. Hinze Degree: Master of Science in Building Construction Graduation Date: June 2010 This study sought to identify the health and safety hazards associated with constructing specific building components of a sustainable structure. The safety and health hazards associated with the sustainable building components were then compared to the health and safety hazards associated with constructing the conventional building component. The intent was to determine whether there is a negative or positive impact of the sustainable products on worker safety. With building construction shifting towards sustainability, emphasis must be given to the safety of workers that construct these newer sustainable products. This will allow for future construction of sustainable building components to be more aware of the safety and health hazards associated to help prevent future injuries to workers who construct them.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Brent Olson.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2010.
Local: Adviser: Hinze, Jimmie W.
Local: Co-adviser: Sullivan, James.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2010
System ID: UFE0042172:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





IMPACTS OF SELECTED SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COMPONENTS ON
CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY


















By

BRENT C. OLSON


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2010

































2010 Brent C. Olson
































To my mom and step dad For all the love and support you have provided throughout
my life









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my family and friends for always being by my side during

tough times. I would also like to thank Dr. Jimmie Hinze and Dr. James Sullivan for their

expertise and dedication to allow me to complete this research. These people have

made it possible for me to excel in my studies and accomplish my goals.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

AC KNO W LEDG M ENTS ........... ................ ......... .......................... ............... 4

LIST OF TABLES ........... .... .... ..... ..................... ....... ............... 7

L IS T O F F IG U R E S .......................................................................................................... 8

ABSTRACT ........... .... ..................................... ............... 9

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... ......... ................... 11

Background ........................................... 11
Statement of Purpose ......... ........ ......... ...... ......................... 11
Research Objectives ................ ........... ......... .. ....... ............... 12

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................... ................. ............... 13

Introduction ..................... ..................... 13
Wall Systems ................ .................................. 13
Insulated C concrete Form ....................................... ... .......................... 13
C M U ................................................................................... 1 5
Roof Systems ................ ......... .................. 17
Single-Ply ...... ........................ ..... ..... ......... 17
Built-Up Roofing ......... ........ ......... .... ........................... 20
M od ifie d B itu m e n ....................................................... 2 1
Green Systems ............ ... ......................... .... ................... 23
Green Roof ................................... ............... 23
Photovoltaic System ............... ..... ........ ................. 25
Warm-Mix Asphalt .......................... ................... 27
Green Building Design and Construction ................................... ....... ............ 29

3 METHODOLOGY ............................ ....... ................. 40

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ........... ........... .. .............. .............. 44

Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) ........................................................ ........ 44
Expert Interview One ...................... ......................... 44
Expert Interview Two ...................... ......................... 45
Expert Interview Three .................. ........ ..................... 47
Green Roof .............. ...................... ......... ..... ................................... 48
Expert Interview O ne ................................ ......... ... ........................... 48
Expert Interview Tw o ................................ ......... ... ........................... 49
Expert Interview Three ................................ ......... ... ........................... 50









Photovoltaic System .............................................................. ........................... 52
Expert Interview O ne ...................... ....... ......... .. .. ........................... 52
Expert Interview Tw o ...................... ....... ......... .. .. ........................... 53
Expert Interview Three ...................... ....... ......... .. ............................ 54
Non-Petroleum-Based Roofing ...... ............. .................. ......... 55

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 58

Conclusions ............... .................................... ....... ........ ......... 58
IC F ............. ......... .. .............. .. ....................................................... 5 8
Green Roof ................................... ............... 59
Photovoltaic System ...................... ....... ......... .. .. ............................ 60
Non-Petroleum -Based Roofing.................................... ..... 61
Future Research Recommendations .................................. 62

APPENDIX

A ICF W ALL CONSTRUCTION JSA............................................. .................... 63

B CMU WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA ........................................................ 65

C SINGLE-PLY WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA .................................................... 67

D BUILT-UP ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA............................. ............... 69

E MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA ................ ......................... 71

F GREEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA ............................... ................... 73

G PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION JSA ............... ...... .......... 75

LIST O F R E FE R E N C E S ......... .......... .......... ......... ....................... ............... 77

BIO G RA PH ICA L SKETC H .......... .......... ......... ............................. ............... 78









LIST OF TABLES

Table page

3-1 Green Elem ents and Safety...... .......................................................... ... ...... 41









LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Types of ICF system s.............................. ............... 33

2-2 Perimeter bracing on foundation for ICF form .............. .................... 33

2-3 ICF wall bracing .......... .................. ..........34

2-4 W indow blocked in with pressure-treated lumber .................... .................. 34

2-5 Corner CMU units without mortar ................................................ 35

2-6 C corner C M U units .......... ........ ......... ........... ................ .............. 35

2-7 EPDM single-ply roof system detail ............................... ............. 36

2-8 Mechanically fastened single-ply roof system detail.............. .................. 36

2-9 Built-up roof detail.......................................... .......... 37

2-10 T orch-dow n technique ......... ................. ................. ................................... 37

2-11 Typical modified bitumen roof system detail...... ....... .. ...................... 38

2-12 Green roof system .......... ............ ......... ................. ..... .......... 38

2-13 C om ponents of a PV array ......... ............................................... ............... 39

2-14 Photovoltaic m counting detail ............................................. ... .. ............... ...... 39











Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction

IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDING COMPONENT CONSTRUCTION ON
WORKER SAFETY

By

Brent C. Olson

August 2010

Chair: Jimmie W. Hinze
Co chair: James G. Sullivan
Major: Building Construction


With any type of construction activity that is performed there are always

associated health and safety hazards. Specifically, these safety and health hazards are

directly related to constructing specific components of a building. With the built

environment becoming sustainable, conventional building components are being

substituted with components that are more energy-efficient and have reduced impacts

on the environment. There is a limited amount of information available regarding the

safety impacts associated with installing specific sustainable building components. This

study focused on identifying the safety hazards associated with selected components

that are decidedly different in their mode of installation, namely constructing insulated

concrete forms (ICF), green roofs, photovoltaic systems, and non-petroleum-based

roofing systems. These systems were examined to determine whether there is a

negative or positive impact of the sustainable products on worker safety.

Eleven interviews conducted with experts familiar with the selected sustainable

building components. The interviews identified the primary health and safety hazards









associated with constructing the sustainable components and conventional

components. The results of this study suggest that there is a negative impact on worker

safety with regards to photovoltaic system installation and a positive impact with regards

to ICF, green roof, and non-petroleum-based roofing construction.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Background

Sustainable construction is on the verge of becoming an industry standard in the

commercial and residential markets. With the rapid growth of sustainable technology,

newer and more innovative sustainable building products are frequently being

introduced into construction. New building technologies come with a learning curve, in

the aspect of function, constructability, and especially safety. It is important that safety is

always kept a top priority in construction. This study aims to identify the health and

safety hazards associated with sustainable construction activities to help devise safer

practices in the future.

Statement of Purpose

This research targets the safety hazards associated with constructing sustainable

structures in commercial and residential construction. Although sustainable buildings

are becoming a larger part of the built environment, certain components of the building

are still relatively new technology. Workers who construct these newer building

components are subjected to unfamiliar conditions and safety hazards. The safety

hazards associated with constructing conventional building components are more

familiar to workers because they have been around longer. This study sought to identify

the health and safety hazards associated with constructing specific building components

of a sustainable structure. They were then compared to the health and safety hazards

associated with constructing the conventional building component to finally conclude if

worker safety is positively or negatively impacted with regards to sustainable building

component construction.









Research Objectives

The objective of this study is to determine if there is a positive or negative impact

on worker safety when constructing sustainable building components by identifying the

health and safety hazards associated.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Whenever any construction activity is performed there is always some level of

risk associated with the safety and health hazards. These construction tasks that are

particularly hazardous and materials that pose health risks have been researched to

devise safer practices. The following sections describe the sustainable and conventional

components and the construction processes involved.

Wall Systems

Insulated Concrete Form

Insulated concrete forms are permanent forms consisting of specific types of

insulation that act as the forming material for poured-concrete walls. The most common

types of insulation material are high-density expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam and

extruded polystyrene (XEPS) foam. These foam blocks are stacked together like

building blocks without mortar before the concrete is poured. Once the blocks are

assembled, reinforced, and braced, concrete is poured into the intermediate cavity to

create an integral wall that is structurally sound. This type of wall system provides

insulation properties that exceed those of conventionally-built walls utilizing relatively

small amounts of concrete.

There are three types of ICF systems: plank, panel, and block systems. These

systems vary in sizes and connection methods. Of the three ICF systems, panel is the

largest which is usually 4' by 8' in size. This type of system allows for more wall area to

be erected in less time but may require more cutting. Connection of panels to one

another is done with fasteners such as glue, wire, or plastic channel. Plank systems are









usually 8 feet long with narrow planks of foam (Miller, 2005). These pieces of foam are

separated by steel or plastic ties embedded in the insulation during the

manufacturing process. Block systems consist of units ranging from an 8" x 16" block to

a 16" high by 4' long block, which is the typical unit used. The blocks connect with one

another by interlocking along the edge with a tongue and groove configuration, and

stack together similar to the concept of children's Lego blocks (Miller, 2005). Block

systems are the most common among the three ICF systems. The three types of ICF

systems are represented in Figure 2-1.

The process of constructing an ICF wall begins with marking the perimeter of the

wall foundation with a chalk line or string to guide the placement of the foam blocks.

Another useful technique to guide the placement of the blocks and to prevent movement

is to place temporary braces, such as 2 x 4's, along the foundation. The 2 x 4's should

be secured to the foundation and will act as a track for the first course of ICF blocks.

This is shown in Figure 2-2.

Once the perimeter of the foundation is marked, placement of the foam blocks can

occur. Placing the foam blocks should start at the corners and work towards the center

of the wall. One course of the ICF blocks should be laid around the entire perimeter.

Once the first course of ICF blocks is laid, continue laying blocks in a staggered pattern

so that the vertical joints of the blocks do not line up from one course to the next. In

addition, concurrently place horizontal rebar every one to two feet, or every other course

of block, as required (Miller, 2005). As the forms are stacked, temporary bracing of all

walls and openings is needed to keep the ICF walls plumb and square during the

concrete pour and to support the weight of the concrete until it achieves the desired









strength (Toolbase Services, 2001). Bracing is needed at corners, window and door

openings, periodically along the length of the wall, and at the top of the forms. Typical

vertical bracing should occur at 6-foot intervals along the wall as well at all window and

door openings. Vertical bracing is shown in Figure 2-3.

When encountering a door or window, cut the ICF blocks with a hand saw for the

openings. A hand saw or hot knife can be used to cut the blocks for electrical conduit

and plumbing space. Openings for windows and doors should be blocked with pressure-

treated lumber to contain the concrete when it is poured (Miller, 2005). This is shown in

Figure 2-4.

After the ICF blocks are stacked to the specified wall height, place 2 x 4 bracing on

the top and secure it to the ICF steel furring strips and the side bracing to keep the

forms in place during the pouring of concrete. In addition, seal the joints of the ICF

blocks with a foam sealant to help secure the blocks until the concrete is poured. It is

essential to properly brace the foam walls to prevent a blow-out from occurring because

of the lightweight nature of the ICF blocks. The last step in constructing an ICF wall is to

pour the concrete. Pouring the walls should be done in 4-foot increments with a chute or

a boom pump truck or per manufacturer's instructions. After the last increment of

concrete is poured and is leveled off to the top of the wall, anchor bolts should be set for

the top plate for roof construction. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with

constructing an ICF wall can be found in Appendix A.

CMU

Concrete masonry units are one of the most widely used construction materials

(Spence, 1998). They are molded concrete units used in building construction as an

integral part of the structure, as facing for or filler panels between structural elements,









and to construct partitions (Simmons, 2007). Concrete masonry units are made of

mixtures of portland cement, aggregates, water, and sometimes admixtures. The typical

block used for CMU wall construction has a nominal size of 8 inches x 8 inches x 16

inches and weighs around 40 pounds.

Constructing a reinforced CMU block wall first begins with locating the corners of

the building. Once the corners are identified, place the CMU blocks so that they are

spaced out to determine the extent to which the units must be cut to accommodate the

horizontal coursing. This is shown in Figure 2-5.

The corner unit is laid first and carefully placed in its correct position (Simmons,

2007). After several units have been laid, it is then necessary to use a straight edge to

verify that the units are in correct alignment. All mortar joints should be 3/8 inch thick

except for the first course of units, which should be a thick bed of mortar spread out on

the foundation to ensure that there will be enough mortar along the bottom edge of the

face shells and web of the block (Simmons, 2007). After the first course has been laid,

the corners of the wall are built before the rest of the wall is laid. The corners are started

by laying up several courses higher than the center of the wall. Each course should be

stepped back by one-half unit. Make sure that after every course is laid the alignment is

plumb and level. An example of laying the corners is shown in Figure 2-6.

The next step involves laying blocks between the corners. Before lying any blocks

between the corners, a line should be stretched from corner to corner for each course.

Then lay the top outside edge of the units to this line to ensure additional courses are

plumb and true. Continue laying blocks while placing vertical and horizontal rebar at

their specified spacing. Typical horizontal rebar spacing is every other course, or every









16 inches, and vertical rebar placement is every 48 inches. Note that additional rebar is

required at all corners and openings. In addition to the vertical rebar placed every 48

inches is a column that must be poured. Every 48 inches concrete must be poured

down one of the cavities of a CMU block to form an internal solid column. This column

serves to add stability to the wall to support loads and resist shear forces. When

encountering window and door openings, blocks will have to be sized correctly to create

the specified opening and should be cut with a concrete or masonry saw. Window and

door openings additionally require CMU lintel blocks which serve as structural support

for superior loads. These lintel blocks are a U-shaped block that gets completely filled

with concrete and horizontal rebar.

The CMU blocks are typically constructed in 4-foot lifts, or every 6 courses. CMU

block walls do not have the capability to be constructed to unlimited heights on a

continuous basis because of stability issues. An important issue with regards to

constructing a CMU block wall is the relationships between the masons, plumbers, and

electricians. All three of these parties must have good communication with each other in

order to stay on schedule and construct the wall as specified. Plumbers and electricians

have to run conduit and pipe through the wall and must be on site at all times during

wall construction in order to do this at the right time. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA)

report associated with constructing a CMU wall can be found in Appendix B.

Roof Systems

Single-Ply

Non-petroleum-based roofing is commonly constructed in the form of a single-ply

membrane system. Single-ply roof systems consist of four basic components:

insulation, single-ply membrane, flashing, and an adhesive. The insulation provides a









stable substrate for the single-ply membrane, which makes up the roof system. The

adhesive bonds the ply to the substrate and the flashing provides waterproofing around

the roof perimeter, equipment, and projections.

Single-ply membranes are either thermoset or thermoplastic materials. Thermoset

materials cure during the manufacturing process and can only be bonded to themselves

with an adhesive. Thermoplastic materials do not completely cure during manufacturing

and can be welded together, usually with a high-temperature air gun (Spence, 1998).

The two commonly used thermoset membranes used are chlorosulfated polyethylene

(CSPE) and ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM). CPSE cures after it is

installed and is resistant to ozone, sunlight, and most chemicals. EPDM membrane is

an elastomeric compound produced from propylene, ethylene, and diene monomer and

has great resistance to weathering, ultraviolet rays, abrasion, and ozone (Spence,

1998). The two common thermoplastic membrane materials used are polyvinyl chloride

(PVC) and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS). PVC membranes are made by the

polymerization of vinyl chloride monomer, stabilizers, and plasticizers. They are easy to

bond, have good resistance to most weather conditions and fire. SBS membranes are

produced by blending SBS with high-quality asphalt over a fiberglass mat (Spence,

1998). SBS membranes have good fire resistance and can be applied with hot or cold

asphalt or be torched.

Single-ply roofing systems can be applied over almost any existing asphalt or built-

up roofs. Single-ply roofs are either loose laid, mechanically fastened, or fully adhered

systems. Loose laid and ballasted single-ply systems are independent of the roof deck,

which allows the structure to move without affecting the roofing. The loose laid









membrane is secured to the underlying deck with ballast, which is most commonly large

aggregate, to reduce the tendency of the roof to be uplifted from wind. The membrane is

covered with insulation and a protective mat and then covered with the ballast. Loose

laid roofing is placed over the substrates with only minimal fastening around the edges

and at penetrations. Adjoining sheets should be lapped and bonded together using the

roofing manufacturer's sealant (Simmons, 2007). An EPDM single-ply system is shown

in Figure 2-7.

Mechanically fastened systems are applied using either penetrating or non-

penetrating fasteners. The difference between the two is that the penetrating fasteners

pass through the membrane in to the underlying roof deck. Non-penetrating fasteners

are anchored to the structural deck, and the membrane is fastened to them using

clamps or snap-on caps (Simmons, 2007). Another technique used is metal batten bars

are placed at intervals on top of the membrane and then screwed to the deck. The

metal batten bars are then covered with plastic cover strips by the use of an adhesive

(Spence, 1998). Figure 2-8 shows a mechanically fastened single-ply system with

batten strips.

Adhered single-ply systems are either fully adhered or partially adhered. In a fully

adhered system, the membrane is completely attached to the underlayment using hot-

or cold-applied bitumen, cold-applied adhesives, solvents by heating the back of the

membrane, or by pressing self-adhering membrane in-place (Simmons, 2007). In a

partially adhered system, the roofing membrane is laid into strips of bitumen, adhesive,

or solvent and rolled, or is adhered by similar materials placed on the top plates of the

fasteners that hold down the insulation (Simmons, 2007). The Job Safety Analysis









(JSA) report associated with installing a single-ply roof system can be found in

Appendix C.

Built-Up Roofing

Traditional built-up roofing systems consist of bitumen (asphalt or coal tar) usually

applied over hot felts, which may be glass fiber, organic, or polyester, and a finished top

surface, such as an aggregate or cap sheet (Spence, 1998). Built-up roofs on nailable

roof decks consist of several layers. The first layer is the nailable roof deck, which is

either wood, plywood, lightweight insulating concrete, or precast gypsum, with one ply

of sheathing paper nailed to it. The next layer consists of three to five layers of and

asphalt-coated felt, bonded with coatings of hot mopped bitumen (Spence, 1998). The

last layer, which is the top coat, is then covered with roofing asphalt and gravel.

Typical built-up roof construction on non-nailable decks, such as steel, precast

concrete, and poured concrete, begins by bonding the insulation with hot bitumen or an

approved adhesive. This is followed by layers of asphalt-saturated roofing felt and hot

roofing asphalt. The layers of felt are laid in a full bed of hot asphalt and broomed in

place. The roofing asphalt is brought to the site in a tank truck and heated in an asphalt

kettle. The heated asphalt is pumped to a tank on the roof and moved to the area where

workers are applying it. The next paragraph describes a more detailed process of

installing a built-up roof.

The process of installing a built-up roofing system first begins with nailing down or

mechanically fastening a base sheet to the roof structure. The next step involves

placing the first layer of preformed roof insulation board which should be bonded with

hot bitumen or an adhesive. Once the insulation is secure to the deck with the base

sheathing paper, or vapor retarder, it should then be mopped down with hot asphalt.









The next step is to place a second layer of the preformed roof insulation board down.

This second layer of insulation is to then be mopped down with the hot asphalt. After the

two insulation layers have been sufficiently mopped down, the next step is to apply an

asphalt-coated base sheet. This layer should be mopped down with hot asphalt. The

next step involves multiple layers of asphalt glass fiber felt, which is most commonly

four plies of #4 felt. The first layer of felt is placed on top of the mopped down base

sheet and then mopped down with the hot asphalt. The preceding layers of asphalt fiber

felt are applied in the same manner as the first one. After the desired number of felt

layers are laid down and mopped with sufficient asphalt, the top should be flood-coated

with hot-bitumen, and the aggregate ballast should be laid in it. If aggregate ballast is

not specified or desired, other options include aggregate-surface asphalt felt, fiberglass

cap sheet, or a glazed top-coat. A built-up roof is shown in Figure 2-9. The Job Safety

Analysis (JSA) report associated with installing a built-up roof system can be found in

Appendix D.

Modified Bitumen

Modified bitumen membranes combine polymer-modified asphalt and a polyester

or fiberglass mat, resulting in a product of exceptional strength The two membranes

available are styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) and atactic polypropylene (APP). SBS

sheets have a reinforcement mat coated with an elastomeric blend of asphalt and SBS

rubber. APP membranes have a reinforcement mat coated with a blend of asphalt and

APP plastic (Spence, 1998). The major difference between the two is the blended

asphalt used. The blends create a product that has greater elongation, strength, and

flexibility than traditional roofing asphalts.









The SBS membranes are usually installed using hot asphalt as the bonding

material. They are applied as cap sheets over a base of hot asphalt and roofing felts.

The cap sheet, or SBS membrane, sometimes has a ceramic granule surface that

protects it from the harsh ultraviolet light. It also is sometimes un-surfaced which has to

be coated with asphalt and gravel to give it ultraviolet protection (Spence, 1998).

APP products are applied by a method known as "torch-down." The properties of

the modified bitumen make this process possible because of the back coating of

modified asphalt. The back coating is heated with a propane torch to the point at which

it becomes able to bond the sheet to the substrate. These APP products cannot be

installed with hot mopped asphalt (Spence, 1998). The torch-down technique is shown

in Figure 2-10.

The process of installing a modified bitumen roof system is similar to a roof system

except there are fewer layers and a torch is commonly used. The first step of installation

involves laying down a preformed roof insulation board and mechanically attaching it or

nailing it to the roof deck. The next step is to lay down an asphalt-coated base sheet

which may be self-adhering or may constitute the use of an approved adhesive to

secure it to the insulation board. The last layer that is laid down is the modified bitumen

sheet which has the bitumen substance on the bottom surface. A torch should then be

used to heat the modified bitumen sheet so that the bitumen substance can adhere to

the base sheet. The roof system is complete after all the modified bitumen sheets have

been torched down. Figure 2-11 represents a typical modified bitumen roof system.

The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with installing a modified bitumen roof

system can be found in Appendix E.









Green Systems


Green Roof

A green roof is a special roof system consisting of different types of vegetation and

living plants. This type of roof is also termed a living or planted roof (Toolbase Services,

2001). A green roof usually acts as a roof system alone, but may also be an addition to

an existing roof structure. The concept of a green roof has been around for many years

but has not become popular until recently. Since the development of the LEED rating

system from the U.S. Green Building Council, green roofs have gained much interest

because of their environmentally friendly properties. They help to reduce the heat-island

effect, reduce stormwater runoff, and increase energy efficiency of a building.

Green roof systems consist of four basic components: a waterproofing layer, a

drainage layer, a growing medium, and vegetation (Toolbase Services, 2001). All green

roof systems include these four basic components but some may also include root

retention and irrigation systems. A green roof system is represented in Figure 2-12.

There are two types of green roof systems: extensive and intensive. Extensive

systems are the smaller of the two and have much less of an impact on the roof

structure. They include low-lying plants such as succulents, mosses, and grasses,

which usually make up a few inches of foliage, and require relatively thin layers of soil

(1-6 inches). A complete extensive green roof system on average weighs in around 10-

50 pounds per square foot of roof area. Extensive systems are most commonly used for

residential applications. Intensive green roof systems are much larger than extensive

systems. They usually feature deeper soil and can support larger plants including crops,

shrubs, and trees (Toolbase Services, 2001). These systems weigh in the range of 80









to more than 120 pounds per square foot. Maintenance is generally easier for extensive

systems because of less vegetation.

Installing a green roof system typically occurs on top of a single-ply roofing

system, such as TPO or EPDM. The process of constructing a green roof system first

begins with installing the root barrier. The root barrier is usually in the form of a mat like

surface, which may be sheets of rigid insulation or thick plastic, copper foil, or a

combination of materials (Wark, 2003). The root barrier serves to reduce the tendency

of roots penetrating the membrane which would cause leakage. The next component

installed is a rigid insulation board which is secured directly to the root barrier. The

insulation is an optional component and is dependent upon certain building codes.

The next part of the green roof is the drainage and water storage layer. This layer

typically consists of plastic sheets or synthetic porous mats. This drainage layer serves

to prevent plant material from being drained from the system and also to store water to

keep the vegetation saturated. The next layer that is installed is the growing medium or

soil substrate. This layer is the substrate that the vegetation will be planted in. Intensive

systems will have deeper soil thicknesses than extensive systems. Installing this layer

may require the use of a crane or some sort of lifting equipment to hoist the materials to

the roof depending on the size and type of green roof system. An intensive green roof

system would most likely require either a pneumatic boom truck to pump the media to

the roof or a crane to hoist the media to the roof in bags. The last step in installing a

green roof system is planting the vegetation. Small plants and shrubs will be included in

an extensive system, where large plants and trees will be included in an extensive









system. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing a green roof

can be found in Appendix F.

Photovoltaic System

Photovoltaic is a solar energy technology that uses solar cells to directly convert

solar radiation into electricity (American Technical Publishers, 2007). A photovoltaic

system, commonly termed solar panel, is an electrical system that consists of groups of

solar cells which form a PV module. Groups of modules then make up what is known as

a PV array. The most common PV system configuration is a utility-connected system on

a residential building (American Technical Publishers, 2007). The components of a PV

array are represented in Figure 2-13.

The installation of PV systems requires extensive electrical work and should be

performed by a qualified person. A qualified person is a person with the skills and

knowledge of the construction and operation of electrical equipment and installations

and is trained to recognize the safety hazards involved (American Technical Publishers,

2007). Safety is a particular concern as electricity is generated as soon as sunlight

exposure occurs; there is no "on-off" switch. Training must include the use and

inspection of personal protective equipment (PPE) and use of insulated tools and test

equipment. Persons working on or near exposed conductors must be able to identify

exposed live parts and their voltage, assess the risks for the type of work to be

performed, and determine the appropriate PPE and other safety precautions required

during installation of a PV system (American Technical Publishers, 2007).

In most cases, local and state contracting laws and regulations require an

electrical contractor to be licensed in order to apply for permits and perform electrical

work, including work on PV systems (American Technical Publishers, 2007). A few









states, including Florida, California, and Nevada, have a solar contractor license

classification that includes PV system installations in their scope of work. However,

these licenses are limited to performing only incidental work and require the solar

contractor to hire an electrical subcontractor to install any premise wiring or make

connections to the utility grid.

Proper safety precautions must be taken during all aspects of PV-system

installation. These tasks can expose personnel to electrical, chemical, explosion, fire,

exposure, and ergonomic hazards. Certain safety gear, such as special tools and

equipment, fall protection, and PPE, may be required depending on the system to be

installed (American Technical Publishers, 2007). Proper working space should be

reserved around the electrical equipment so that workers can safely and efficiently

install and inspect the equipment.

The process of installing a roof-mounted photovoltaic system begins with the solar

contractor installing aluminum L-brackets to the roof structure. The aluminum L-brackets

are secured to the roof by screwing them into the roof rafters. A polyurethane sealant is

applied in the roof penetration right before the L-brackets are screwed in to prevent

water from leaking to the interior of the roof. The next step involves installing the

aluminum rails for which the PV panels will be mounted on. These rails are bolted

directly to the roof mounted aluminum L-brackets with stainless steel bolts. After the

aluminum mounting rails are installed, the PV panels are then lifted to the roof and

carefully set on the mounting rails. Once the PV panels are centered correctly on the

rails, they are secured to the mounting rails with hold-down clamps. These components

are shown in Figure 2-14.









The next phase involves installation of the PV combiner, inverter, main service

panel, and system wiring. The combiner box strings the series of wires from all the PV

panels into one main wire that will run to the inverter, i.e., the combiner box acts as a

multiple lane highway that converges into one lane. The inverter is the next part of

installation and serves to covert DC power generated from the PV panels into AC

power. The main service panel is the last component of the system to be installed

before system wiring is run. Proper wiring of the system occurs in the following order:

PV panels to the combiner box; combiner box to the inverter; inverter to the main

service panel; main service panel to the utility grid and building.

Installation of a PV system involves an electrician and either a solar contractor or a

roofing contractor. If a roofing contractor installs the PV system, they are legally bound

to only make roof penetrations and PV attachments to the roof. The roofing contractor is

considered out of their scope of work if they perform any system wiring. A solar

contractor can make roof penetrations, attach the PV system components, and run only

the DC system wiring to the inverter. The solar contractor is considered out of their

scope of work if they run the AC power from the inverter to the main service panel. The

electrician can install the entire PV system wiring and is the only party that can install

the AC wiring. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing a

photovoltaic system can be found in Appendix G.

Warm-Mix Asphalt

The heating of asphalt during roofing and road-building applications results in the

release of more than 50 organic compounds to which 350,000 construction workers are

routinely exposed (Cervarich, 2009). Over the past two decades, the asphalt pavement

industry has been working with NIOSH, other government agencies, and unions to









improve working conditions at the paving site, including reducing workers' exposure to

asphalt fumes (Harte, 2009). In the late 1990's, an agreement was made to put controls

on all U.S. manufactured highway-class pavers to vent fumes away from workers.

Although this effort contributed tremendously to keeping fumes away from workers, the

industry felt as though it still was not good enough. The ultimate goal was to minimize or

eliminate the fumes at their source.

The composition of asphalt pavement material includes asphalt cement, a

petroleum product, and an aggregate mix of stone, sand, and gravel. Studies have

shown that the temperature of the asphalt cement is proportional to the amount of

fumes it produces; therefore, higher asphalt cement temperatures yield higher levels of

fumes. To improve paving safety, the task was to produce the asphalt pavement

material at lower temperatures to minimize the associated fumes.

In 2002, the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) sponsored research

at the National Center for Asphalt Technology to explore the opportunities of warm-mix

asphalt. The first warm-mix technology in the U.S. came about in 2004, and since then,

technology innovators have introduced approximately 15 new, warm-mix technologies.

Warm-mix asphalt is a term used for different technologies that allow the producers of

hot-mix asphalt pavement material to lower the temperatures for its production at the

construction stage. Conventional hot-mix asphalt is produced at 2800 to 3200 F,

whereas warm-mix technologies allow production temperatures to be reduced to

approximately 2150 to 2750 F. In addition, the warm-mix asphalt is cooled by another

100 to 200 F during the time it is transported to the paving site (Cervarich, 2009).









Warm-mix technologies bring many benefits to the asphalt pavement industry.

The more common benefits include improved working conditions, a reduction in overall

fume emissions, and increased fuel savings. Through further research, additional

benefits have been discovered for these technologies. These mixes were found to have

the potential to extend paving time in cold climates, improve overall pavement quality,

and lengthen the lifespan of the pavement. The asphalt industry is considered the

number one recycler in the U.S. with over 100 million tons of asphalt pavement being

reclaimed each year. Nearly 95 percent of this material is reused or recycled each year

(Cervarich, 2009).

Since the temperatures of warm-mix asphalt are significantly reduced when it

reaches the paving site, workers experience a more comfortable work area because the

paving site is cooler. Also, the fumes and any odor associated with the asphalt paving

are virtually gone. Workability of the warm-mix has been reported to be less labor

intensive and easier to compact. The introduction of warm-mix asphalt technologies into

the U.S. paving industry was an important step in sustainable development. The

implementation of these technologies has brought economic, performance, and

environmental benefits. Most importantly, there is a reduced impact on worker health

and safety.

Green Building Design and Construction

Through the design, construction, and final operation of a green building, the

main concern for human safety and health is for the end-user. While the end-user's

safety is important, so too is the safety of the worker constructing the building. The

issue, which is not addressed in the LEED process, is whether or not construction

worker safety and human health are impacted through the implementation of









sustainable concepts in the building development process. A pilot study was conducted

to determine the relationship between green building practices and construction worker

safety and health. The study focused on a project that was to receive LEED Gold

certification. The data collected came from project documentation and interviews which

included representatives from the general contracting and subcontracting firms working

on the college campus project.

Two main questions were asked of the participants regarding green building

construction and the safety of the construction workers. The first question was if a

safety concern was identified, and if so, was the impact considered positive or negative.

The positive impact responses were good housekeeping, low VOC materials, and

painting location and timing relative to the location of other workers. The negative

impacts included increased material handling, extra dumpsters for material separation,

and the design of the atrium. The intent of the atrium design was to increase natural

light for the interior of the building, but this design resulted in more scaffolding which

increased worker exposure to potential injury.

The second question was how safety on the green building site compared to a

conventional building site. The question was part of a survey and included twenty-four

participants. Of those interviewed, twelve felt that green building sites were a little safer,

seven stated that they were much safer, and five reported that they were the same as

conventional building sites (Rajendran, 2006).

The construction industry's current view on sustainability is based on the

principles of resource efficiency and the health and productivity of the building's

occupants. However, if a building is labeled as "sustainable", it should be sustainable









across its entire lifecycle, including construction and design. Rajendran conducted a

second and more extensive study to determine the impacts of green building design and

construction on the safety and health of construction workers. The focus of the study

was to analyze the safety and health performance of 38 green and 48 non-green

construction projects to determine if any differences exist between the two. Safety and

health performance data were based on the OSHA recordable and lost time

injury/illness rates experienced on the projects. Identification of a green and non-green

project was based upon whether or not the project was pursuing LEED certification.

There were a total of seven construction firms that provided data from their

previous and current projects. The data received from the seven firms included 86

building projects. The approach for obtaining the data from the firms consisted of

requesting information on project demographics, safety performance, and LEED.

Project demographics included project type, cost, size, and location. Safety

performance information included total project man-hours, the number of OSHA

recordable injuries and the number of lost time injuries/illnesses on the project

(Rajendran, 2006). Information solicited for LEED included the type of certification being

sought, the level of certification, the number of points, and if the project was certified or

registered.

The research concluded that there appeared to be little to no difference between

the green and non-green projects in terms of construction safety and health. The

safety performance of green and non-green buildings were the same which raises the

question as to whether LEED buildings should be labeled as sustainable buildings. It









was concluded that LEED projects are environmentally sustainable but not sustainable

in terms of worker safety and health (Rajendran, 2006)















Panel
-4 N, ,


,:*_'""**. f


B' t A-^
C

4 H
:- *w
'
A *
Al
; -


*.
jt


Ii, IP

""""*-'-,. """ *: -


%I "
h' ri
^o
tfl [I

BK~o


Figure 2-1. Types of ICF systems (BuildCentral, Inc. 2010)


CORNER BRACE WITH FORMS


( 4 vertical brace on
ide of comer.



Double tic wire around
2 X 4 and 2 X 6s above
every Course.


corner


Figure 2-2. Perimeter bracing on foundation for ICF form (Miller, 2005)


Block


Plank


t"^


s
s
r




























Figure 2-3. ICF wall bracing (Miller, 2005)


Figure 2-4. Window blocked in with pressure-treated lumber



























Figure 2-5. Corner CMU units without mortar (Simmons, 2007)


Figure 2-6. Corner CMU units (Simmons, 2007)







































Figure 2-7. EPDM single-ply roof system detail (Spence, 1998)


BATTEN CUVER BONDED
TO THE MEMBRANE WITH
AN ADHESIVE -


Figure 2-8. Mechanically fastened single-ply roof system detail (Spence, 1998)



































. 36



10
i. t..L i j


Figure 2-9. Built-up roof detail (Spence, 1998)




























Figure 2-10. Torch-down technique











NAILABLE
DECK

ASPHALT-COATED
BASE SHEET OR A
MODIFIED
BITUMEN SHEET


Figure 2-11. Typical modified bitumen roof system detail (Spence, 1998)


Vegetation


GrowirA Medium


Dxainage, Aeratin, Wlle Storage
and Root Barrier
In~ulaticn
Membrane Protection
and Root Bafier
Rooi Membarne

Strutural Support


Figure 2-12. Green roof system (American Wick Drain Corp.)

























CEL MODULE IANEL ARRAY


Figure 2-13. Components of a PV array
(http://www.schl.ca/en/co/maho/enefcosa/enefcosa_003.cfm?renderforprint=1
)


Figure 2-14. Photovoltaic mounting detail









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to examine the safety hazards associated with selected

sustainable building component construction and whether it has a negative or positive

impact on worker safety. The sustainable building components analyzed for this

research were insulated concrete form (ICF), green roof, photovoltaic system, and non-

petroleum-based roofing. The Table 3-1 is not the result of research but a collaborative

effort in which safety assessments were made of different building elements

encountered in green buildings. Table 3-1 includes 31 design elements which are

organized in different categories to show what function the element serves. The

categories are air, ecology, energy, toxins, waste, water, and worker productivity. These

categories represent the characteristic function of the design element, e.g., high-

efficiency air filters are in the air category because the function of the element is to

purify air.

The next column, entitled "New Activities?" provides an assessment of whether

the design element entails new activities or if the activities are essentially the same for

the element being replaced or substituted. The design elements were noted with either

an 'N' for no or a 'Y' for yes, referring to whether or not they were a new construction

activity. For example, the use of low energy lights does not introduce a new activity as

the same procedures would be used to install the low energy lights or the conventional

lights. It was noted that most design elements in Table 3-1 consist of substantially

newer, more energy-efficient elements for the older or conventional elements.

The last column represents the impact on safety of constructing the design

elements. The elements were marked with either a '+', indicating a positive impact, a '-',









indicating a negative impact, or a '0', indicating no impact on safety. Of the 31 elements,

eleven were identified as not impacting construction safety, ten were identified as

favorably impacting construction safety, and ten were identified as adversely impacting

safety.

Of the 31 green design elements, five were identified as being new construction

activities. These were photovoltaic, wind energy generators, non-petroleum-based

roofing, insulated concrete form (ICF), and green roof. These five design elements were

of primary interest in this research. The research objective was to examine the green

design elements that entitled new activities to more fully assess the implications on

safety and how these issues could be properly addressed.

Table 3-1. Green Elements and Safety (Hinze and Gambatese, unpublished)
Construction
Green Design Element Category New Impact on


High-efficiency air filters
Air monitors
Use of indigenous plants
Photovoltaic
Solar collectors
High-efficiency HVAC
Shading
Zoned air conditioning
Low energy lights
Timed lighting systems
Wind energy generators
Insulated curtains
Reflective surfaces for roofing and walls
High-efficiency windows
Use of fly ash in concrete
Low cement content materials
Use of local materials


Air
Air
Ecology
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy


Activities? Safety
N 0
N +
N +
Y
N
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
N 0
Y
N 0
N
N 0
N +
N +
N +









Table 3-1. Continued.
Construction
Green Design Element Category New Impact on
Activities? Safety
Geothermal heating system Energy N
Non-toxic materials (e.g., paints, caulking,
sealants, adhesives) Toxins N +
Non-petroleum-based roofing Toxins Y +
Use of recycled materials Waste N
Material reuse Waste N
Use of renewable materials Waste N 0
ICF Waste Y +
Reuse/recycling of waste products Waste N
Cut-to-order purchasing Waste N +
Green roof Water Y +
Low water use fixtures Water N 0
Greywater use Water N
Rainwater collection Water N
Worker
Daylighting productivity N 0

Upon closer review of the five green design elements that entitled new activities, it

was decided not to examine the safety or health impacts associated with wind energy

generators. Wind energy generators were excluded from this research because they are

not actual components of buildings but rather separate electrical generating units, i.e.,

there is no parallel conventional component for comparison of safety and health

impacts. In addition, the scope of projects to erect wind energy generators is enormous.

Wind energy generator installations consist of site development, trenching for utility

lines, constructing substantial foundations, erecting the support towers with the

generators, attaching the propellers, addressing power distribution, and other major

activities. This is a topic for a sole focus for research.

Experts familiar with constructing ICFs, green roofs, photovoltaic systems, and

non-petroleum-based roofing were interviewed for data collection. A total of 11 experts

were interviewed three experts for ICFs, three experts for green roofs, three experts









for photovoltaic systems, and two experts for non-petroleum-based roofing. Only two

experts were interviewed for non-petroleum-based roofing because there was no

difference in these observations and opinions. It did not appear worthwhile to conduct a

third expert interview.

The experts were chosen on the basis of their knowledge and experience with the

components and the associated construction process. The representatives were from

large firms in niche areas and were selected in two ways: through the use of a web-

based search engine and contacts with professionals personally known by the author.

The goal of the interviews was to gather information on the following: 1) the safety

hazards associated with constructing the sustainable building component, and 2) the

safety hazards associated with constructing the conventional building component. The

intent of this study was to determine if constructing sustainable building components

has a positive or negative impact on worker safety. The methodology was as follows:

1. Researched companies that specialize in ICF, green roof, photovoltaic system,
and non-petroleum-based roofing construction and installation

2. Developed questions for interviews

3. Contacted representatives of companies to arrange interviews

4. Conducted in-person and telephone interviews

5. Organized information gathered from interviews to establish results









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The results of this study are presented below in four sections. The sections include

the overview of the component and the expert interview results.

1. Insulated Concrete Form
2. Green roof
3. Photovoltaic system
4. Non-petroleum-based roofing

Insulated Concrete Form (ICF)

Expert Interview One

The health and safety concerns associated with constructing an ICF wall were

identified by three expert interview participants and will be described. The first safety

issue identified by the interviewee involved the amount of time that workers are on the

scaffolding, which is required to construct an ICF wall. With regards to the time that

workers are on scaffolding, the process of constructing a CMU block wall takes longer

than constructing an ICF wall. With an ICF wall, the blocks are much larger than a CMU

block so more wall area can be constructed in a shorter amount of time. The amount of

time workers are on scaffolding, which is required to build the wall, is in reference to the

total time, e.g., two weeks. It is not referring to the daily amount of time workers are on

the scaffolding since it would be the same for both a conventional CMU block wall and

an ICF wall. The safety hazard associated with workers being on scaffolding is the risk

of falling. Less time on scaffolding means there is a reduced risk of a worker falling.

The next safety concern discussed was falling objects during wall construction.

The objects of concern pertain to CMU blocks and ICF blocks. CMU blocks are very

heavy and if one happens to fall from the scaffolding or during placement on the wall, it

can cause serious injury to workers below. In addition, the relatively sharp corners of a









CMU block could contribute additional injury if a worker was struck by one falling. The

potential risk of injury caused by a falling ICF block is significantly reduced because the

blocks consist of foam insulation and weigh much less than a CMU block.

The next safety concern identified was in regards to pouring concrete columns in a

CMU block wall. For a conventional CMU block wall, a column must be poured every 48

inches for structural integrity. During this process, concrete and insulation is poured into

the CMU block's cavities to form a solid vertical column. The insulation consists of either

vermiculite or perlite and when it is poured or blown in with the concrete it generates

dust. This poses a health hazard to workers because of the risk of inhaling the dust

particles. This health hazard is not associated with constructing an ICF wall because

vermiculite or perlite is not used.

The last safety hazard identified by the interviewee dealt with the use of powder

actuated devices. After a CMU block wall is constructed, furrings have to be installed on

the wall interior so that drywall can then be attached. Attaching the furrings to the CMU

wall requires the use of a powder-actuated device. A worker then becomes at risk to the

hazards associated with the use of this device. With an ICF wall system, powder-

actuated devices are not used which eliminates the associated risks.

Expert Interview Two

One of the primary safety concerns identified by the interviewee was in regards to

the weight of the CMU blocks and the risk of injury to a worker if one falls from a high

elevation during conventional CMU block wall construction. The potential for a CMU

block falling is during the process of a worker placing the block on the wall, during the

process of hoisting additional blocks up to the scaffolding, or when a worker is simply

rearranging or organizing the stockpile of CMU blocks on the scaffolding. The CMU









blocks are very heavy objects and if one happens to fall and strike a worker below,

serious injury can result. The Styrofoam blocks used for ICF wall construction are much

lighter than CMU blocks and the potential for injury from a panel falling from a high

elevation is significantly reduced.

Another safety concern discussed was ergonomic issues. Workers are at a higher

risk of straining muscles when lifting CMU blocks because they are heavy objects.

Since ICF blocks are much lighter, the risk of a worker sustaining a back injury or

muscle strain is reduced significantly.

Additional safety concerns identified by the interviewee included the use of tools

and material characteristics. Both ICF wall construction and CMU block wall

construction require the use of power tools. When constructing the wall with either

component, certain parts or sections of the wall will require a modified piece, such as a

corner or window opening. The power tools used to cut an ICF block to a specific size

include a chain saw or a heat gun and the power tools used to cut a CMU block include

a concrete saw. In addition, holes have to be drilled for electrical and plumbing work

and require the use of a drill. The safety hazards associated with the use of these power

tools are relatively the same with regards to cutting and drilling an ICF block or a CMU

block. The issue of concern is the dust generated from cutting or drilling a CMU block.

Cutting and drilling a CMU block generates a significant amount of dust whereas cutting

or drilling an ICF block does not. The health hazard associated is the potential risk of a

worker inhaling the dust particles generated. The safety concern associated with

material characteristics is the texture of a CMU block. A CMU block has a rough texture

and relatively sharp corners which can cause skin abrasions if rubbed against.









However, because an ICF block is composed of Styrofoam the chance of a worker

sustaining a cut or abrasion to the skin is unlikely.

The last safety concern identified was in regards to duration of constructing an ICF

wall. The process of constructing an ICF wall typically takes 20-30% less time than

constructing a conventional CMU block wall similar in size which results in an overall

diminished exposure to the safety hazards associated.

Expert Interview Three

The first safety concern that the interviewee identified was in regards to the weight

difference between an ICF block and a CMU block. An ICF block is much lighter than a

CMU block and is composed of foam like material. With an ICF block, workers are at

minimal risk of sustaining injuries from lifting them, injuries from being struck by one

falling from scaffolding or any other high elevation, and injuries from abrupt skin contact.

Constant lifting of CMU blocks throughout the day can put serious strain on a workers

body, especially the back, which can result in muscle strains and back complications.

Since a CMU block is made of concrete and has a rough texture, workers are at risk of

sustaining cuts, scrapes, and bruises when they are being handled.

The next safety concern identified was the hazards associated with the tools used

to cut an ICF block and a CMU block. The tool used to cut an ICF block is a hand saw,

similar to a drywall saw, and the tool used to cut a CMU block is a powered concrete

saw. A worker using a hand saw to cut an ICF block is at a much less risk of sustaining

a bodily injury compared to a worker using a powered concrete saw to cut a CMU block

because the powered concrete saw has a high-speed spinning blade. The high speed

spinning blade has the potential to cause severe bodily injuries whereas the hand saw

only poses minimal threat. Workers are also exposed to dust particles and concrete









fragments projected from the spinning blade while cutting. This puts a worker at risk of

inhaling the dust particles and sustaining an eye injury from the projected fragments.

Green Roof

Expert Interview One

The health and safety concerns associated with constructing a green roof were

identified by three expert interview participants and will be discussed below. The

interviewee stated that the typical safety hazards associated with constructing a

conventional roof were also present during green roof construction. Three distinct

elements were identified that were directly related to green roof construction and safety.

These elements are as follows: the construction of a parapet wall, the use of low-VOC

materials, and the elimination of asphalt use. The participant stated that the green roofs

that they construct integrate a parapet wall into the design. The parapet wall is designed

to be 39 inches high to meet OSHA requirements for fall protection so workers do not

have to tie-off. By having the parapet wall as part of the green roof structure, workers

can construct the green roof without additional fall protection. This provides a

barricaded area for the workers and reduces the risk of falling.

The second element was the use of low-VOC materials. The natural root barrier

in a green roof is a specific membrane layer applied on top of the insulation board. The

root barrier is a PVC or thermoplastic (TPO) membrane which has low-VOC content.

The use of this type of membrane reduces worker exposure to VOCs. Conventional

roofing membrane materials typically have high-VOC content, resulting in continuous

worker exposure throughout the work day.

The third element identified was the use of PVC or thermoplastic materials

instead of asphalt. Workers are at risk of burn injuries when working with asphalt









because it must be heated to high temperatures for application. Workers are also

exposed to the fumes associated with hot asphalt. Inhaling these fumes for extended

periods jeopardizes the health of the workers. With the PVC or thermoplastic membrane

used for a green roof, the safety and health hazards associated with asphalt are

eliminated because it is at ambient temperature and does not expel any fumes.

Expert Interview Two

The interviewee identified that the root barrier installed for the green roof is

commonly a 30 mil polyethylene membrane and that the material does not off-gas

because it is a low-VOC material. The material does not pose any safety hazards to

workers but the process of installing the membrane does. Once the root barrier

membrane is laid down on the roof structure the seams are welded together with a hot

air gun. The safety hazard associated with the use of a hot air gun is risk for a burn

injury. Exposure to a fire hazard is minimal with construction of a green roof because no

tools or equipment with an open flame is used. With a conventional built-up or modified

bitumen roof system, the use of torches is a common practice.

The next safety hazard identified by the interviewee is in regards to crane

logistics. The media, plants, and trees that are hoisted to the roof are somewhat

abnormal objects to rig and lift and can pose a challenge to the crane operator and the

workers rigging the materials. Since the materials are different than conventional roofing

materials, the risk of one of these objects falling caused by the rigging malfunctioning is

increased; however the risk is dependent on how well the workers rig the materials.

Although the risks associated with hoisting materials to the roof are present with any

type of roofing system, the conditions are slightly different with green roof materials. An









example identified was the bags of media lifted to the roof are heavy and have the

potential to rip open.

Another safety hazard identified dealt with residential green roof construction.

The green roof materials are brought up to the roof by hand using a ladder because the

most residential roofs are not high enough to require lifting equipment. This technique

could cause the worker to fall off the ladder from having undistributed weight, uneven

balance, or reduced contact points and cause serious injury. However, the interviewee

stated that this unsafe practice is also performed with traditional residential roof

construction and the same safety hazards and risk of injuries are present.

The interviewee described that green roof construction is probably safer than

conventional roof construction because of the fact that green roofs are relatively new

and that this brings an additional amount of attention to the technology. With it being a

newer technology, workers pay extra attention while working to make them more aware

of the safety hazards present.

Expert Interview Three

The interviewee stated that the typical safety hazards associated with

conventional roof construction are also present with green roof construction, which was

fall hazards, heat exhaustion, and tripping hazards. The interviewee stated that the

material used for the root barrier of a green roof is a low-density polyethylene

membrane (LDPM) and does not de-gas or generate fumes that would pose a health

hazard to workers because of its low-VOC content. The LPDM also does not require a

torch for application so workers are not exposed to a fire hazard and at risk for

sustaining a burn injury. This is the case, however, with conventional built-up or

modified bitumen roof construction because some of the materials used require a torch









to be applied. Workers are also exposed to the hazards associated with hot asphalt.

Roofing asphalt is heated to temperatures that would cause serious burn injuries if a

worker was to come in contact with it. The roofing asphalt also generates toxic fumes

that can be inhaled by workers in close proximity. The plants, trees, shrubs, and media

used for a green roof, which are parallel materials to a conventional roof, are safe to

with and around and do not pose any significant health or safety hazards to workers.

The next issue was in regards to the duration of constructing a green roof relative

to constructing a conventional roof and the exposure to fall hazards. The interviewee

stated that the process of constructing a green roof is commonly faster than

constructing a conventional roofing system. This means that less time is spent on the

roof and reduces the risk of a worker falling from high elevations.

The interviewee identified an issue related to worker safety which did not

specifically involve materials, equipment, or practices. The issue was in regards to the

experience of a roofing company. A roofing company that previously specialized in

constructing conventional roof systems that enters into green roof construction will have

a good understanding and background of the general safety hazards associated with

roof construction. However, a company that is brand new to roof construction that

enters the market specializing in green roof construction is subjected to a learning curve

in which the workers could be at higher risk to the safety hazards. This does not

constitute that any of the workers are necessarily safer than the other and was just an

opinion of the interviewee.









Photovoltaic System


Expert Interview One

The health and safety concerns associated with installing a photovoltaic system

were identified by three expert interview participants and will be discussed below. The

participant for this interview was a general operation manager for a solar contractor

located in Gainesville, Florida and has over twenty years of experience in the solar

industry. The interview lasted around 15 minutes and was conducted via telephone.

Issues discussed during the interview pertained to the safety hazards associated with

installation of a photovoltaic system.

The first safety issue identified by the participant was fall hazards. Installing the

PV system components on a sloped roof puts workers at risk of falling; some type of fall

protection is required. Other fall hazards are also present during the installation of a PV

system, primarily related to tripping hazards. The hazard of electrical shock is also a

real concern. Installation of a PV system requires a large amount of wiring to connect

the modules. Most of the wires cannot be seen since they are integrated into the PV

panels; however, there are some that are elevated a few inches off the roof which run

from one set of modules to another. These wires pose a tripping hazard to workers as

they walk around the modules and they could also pose an electrical hazard. Once the

PV modules are installed they immediately produce DC current and if workers come in

contact with loose wires they could get shocked. A worker who experiences an electrical

shock may also be at risk of falling off the roof. That is, a worker who is startled by an

electrical shock could end up falling off the roof.

Another safety concern that was discussed during the interview involved the

process of getting the PV panels from the ground to the roof. The interviewee stated









that the way the PV panels get up on the roof is either by handing the panels up to

someone on the roof or by using a hoisting mechanism to pull them up, depending on

the roof height. This procedure puts workers at risk of injury from falling objects and

improper lifting techniques.

Expert Interview Two

The participant for this interview was an installation manager for a solar

contractor in Gainesville, Florida and had two years of experience in the solar industry.

The participant is a certified licensed general contractor and a certified project manager.

The interview with this participant lasted around 30 minutes and was conducted in-

person at one of the company's current projects. The project was a 750,000 watt

photovoltaic system installation on the roofs of an apartment complex in Gainesville,

Florida. The interview allowed this researcher to see firsthand the safety hazards

associated with a PV system installation and to obtain additional information about PV

systems.

The first safety hazard identified by the interviewee was electrical shock hazard.

Once a panel is set and wires are connected, DC current is being generated and any

loose wires that a worker contacts result in an electrical shock. The interviewee stated

that he had personally been shocked from a loose wire while working on the system, so

the exposure to shock hazard is always present during installation.

The next safety hazard identified was heat exhaustion during the summer. When

working on a roof during summer days in Florida, workers are exposed to heat

exhaustion and dehydration. Between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. workers are

subjected to extremely high temperatures and the risk of heat exhaustion becomes

significantly increased. The participant stated that during the summer the workers begin









work on the roof around 8:00 a.m. and finish around 1:00 p.m. to avoid any heat-related

injuries. During the rest of the year, however, the risk of heat exhaustion is diminished.

Another safety hazard discussed was tripping hazards from the PV system

wiring. The participant stated that the electrician that does most of their electrical work

usually has quality workmanship which results in minimal wiring that could cause a

worker to trip. However, some of the electrical work on the project that was examined

during the interview revealed wires that increased the risk of a trip hazard. Although the

workmanship of the electrical contractor does affect the exposure of workers to tripping

over wires, the presence of a trip hazard will always exist. In addition to the PV system

wiring posing a trip hazard are the rails that are used to secure the PV modules. The

rails protrude about four to six inches which puts a worker at risk of tripping.

Expert Interview Three

The first safety concern that the interviewee identified related to the weight and

size of the photovoltaic panels. The panels are 33 inches by 66 inches and weigh

approximately 40 to 50 pounds each. Handling these panels is cause for concern for

concern for a couple of reasons. The first reason being that at 40 to 50 pounds, lifting

these panels can cause back and other muscle strains. In addition, if a panel is dropped

from the roof to the ground and strikes a worker, they can sustain serious injury such as

broken bones and contusions. The second reason is issues created by the large size of

the panels. Workers installing the large panels have to contort themselves to get the

panels into position on the roof racks which could place the worker in an unsafe position

on the roof. Another issue with the size of the panels is the potential for the panel

catching the wind while being moved and throwing the worker off balance. This could

cause the worker to fall over onto other objects or push them off the roof.









The next safety concern identified by the interviewee was the potential for

electrical shock. When workers are installing the panels, they are constantly exposed to

a shock hazard because the panels are unable to be turned on or off to prevent them

from generating current. Each panel generates 48 volts of DC current and once

inverted, they generate 120 volts of AC current. The more panels that are connected

together will increase the amount of voltage running through the wiring. This elevates

the severity of a potential injury occurring from a worker coming in contact with a live

wire.

The interviewee stated that for the topic of photovoltaic installation, the main

safety concern is fall hazards, especially on sloped roofs. However, anytime someone is

working on any type of roofing system, the threat of falling is always present. These

hazards can be lessened by the installers using proper fall protection safeguards.

Non-Petroleum-Based Roofing

The health and safety concerns associated with constructing a non-petroleum-

based roofing system were identified by two expert interview participants and will be

discussed below. There were two telephone interviews conducted for this building

component. Both of the interview participants were representatives from large roofing

companies that specialize in single-ply, built-up, and modified bitumen roofing systems.

The safety concerns identified by the interviewees that were associated with non-

petroleum-based roofing were almost identical, so the information obtained from the two

interviews was combined to represent one analysis.

The interview participants were asked what roofing system they use that contain

non-petroleum-based materials in which they identified as being a single ply system.

The single-ply roof consists of either a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or thermoplastic









polyolefin (TPO) membrane, which are both non-petroleum-based. The membrane itself

does not pose any health or safety hazards to workers that install it. However, certain

adhesives that are used to secure the membrane to the solid underlayment do off-gas,

which puts workers at risk of inhaling the fumes. These adhesives are available as

either a water-based adhesive, which does not off-gas, or solvent-based adhesive,

which does off-gas and is the more popular type used.

The next safety concern identified was exposure to fire hazards with regards to a

conventional built-up or modified bitumen roof. Both of these roofing systems require

the use of a torch for application of their respective waterproofing material. Workers in

the vicinity of the torch are at risk for burn injuries which can occur from an explosion,

direct contact with the torch, or materials that catch on fire. With a single-ply roof, the

degree to which workers are exposed to fire hazards is significantly less. This is

because installation of a single-ply roofing system does not require a torch to apply the

waterproofing membrane. It does however require the use of a heat gun to weld

together the seams of the membrane. The heat gun does not create an open flame as

does a torch which reduces the risk of a worker sustaining a burn injury.

Another safety concern identified was in regards to the use of hot asphalt in a

conventional built-up system. The roofing asphalt is at extremely high temperatures

when applied and can cause serious burn injuries to workers that come in contact with

it. Workers are also exposed to the toxic fumes that the roofing asphalt emits. Hot

roofing asphalt is not used in single-ply roofing systems.

The last safety concern stated by the interviewees was in regards to exposure to

fall hazards. Workers are always exposed to fall hazards during construction of a









roofing system, so the longer the process takes will result in an increased risk of

someone falling. The process of constructing a single-ply roofing system takes, on

average, 20% to 30% less time than does a conventional built-up or modified bitumen

roofing system, which results in less time workers spend on the roof and ultimately

reduces the exposure to fall hazards.









CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions

As analyzed in Chapter 4, it was determined from the expert interviews whether

the impact on worker safety with regards to constructing ICFs, green roofs, photovoltaic

systems, and non-petroleum-based roofing was either negative or positive.

ICF

The safety hazards that were identified through the interviews suggest that the

health and safety of workers is positively impacted with regards to ICF construction.

With conventional CMU block wall construction, workers are at potential higher risk of

sustaining injuries mainly because of the weight difference between a CMU block and

an ICF block. The CMU block compared to an ICF block would cause a much more

serious injury if one was to fall and strike a worker below because a CMU block is much

heavier. In addition, the rough texture and extremely hard composition of a CMU block

could cause cuts and bruises from a worker scraping or rubbing against one.

Another assumption as to why there is a positive correlation between worker

safety and ICF construction is the reduced exposure to silica dust. Cutting, grinding, and

drilling CMU blocks produces dust particles that could pose a respiratory threat if

inhaled by a worker. With an ICF block, however, no dust particles are produced from

cutting or drilling so the threat of inhaling the harmful dust particles is eliminated.

The next issue that suggests that constructing ICF walls has a positive impact on

worker health and safety is in regards to the insulation that is added to the concrete in

CMU block wall construction. The vermiculite or perlite insulation that is sometimes

added to the concrete for a CMU block wall generates dust particles that put workers at









potential risk of inhaling. With an ICF wall, insulation is not added to the concrete which

eliminates worker exposure to the dust particles generated from vermiculite or perlite

used for a CMU block wall.

Another positive aspect of ICF wall is that it takes less time to construct than a

conventional CMU block wall. This results in less man-hours and reduced worker

exposure to the safety and health hazards associated with constructing the ICF wall.

One issue that did not necessarily suggest that ICF construction has a positive

impact on worker safety was in regards to the tools used. The primary tools targeted

with regards to worker safety were tools that are used to cut the CMU blocks and the

ICF blocks. The primary tool used to cut a CMU block is a concrete saw and the tools

used to cut an ICF block were identified as either a hand saw or a chain saw. The safety

hazards associated with using a concrete saw or a chain saw pose similar risks to

injuries, which can be significant. The use of a hand saw has a significantly reduced risk

for potential injury. This suggests that this aspect of ICF construction is not necessarily

safer than conventional CMU construction because a hand saw is not always used to

cut the ICF blocks.

Green Roof

The safety hazards that were identified through the interviews suggest that the

health and safety of workers is positively impacted with regards to green roof

construction. The first issue that supports that green roof construction is safer than

conventional roof construction is in regards to the roofing materials used. The root

barrier used in a green roof system is a PVC or thermoplastic membrane, which has

low-VOC content, and the materials used in a conventional roofing system contain high-

VOC content. Since materials with high-VOC content off gas, workers are at an









increased risk of inhaling toxic fumes during construction of a conventional roof. Another

suggesting issue is the fact that asphalt is not used in green roof construction. Hot

roofing asphalt used in conventional roofing not only off gases, but is at very high

temperatures during application. Workers in the vicinity of the hot asphalt are at

potential risk for sustaining a burn injury.

The next positive aspect of green roof construction is that a torch is not used to

install any of the roofing materials. With built-up and modified bitumen roofing systems,

a torch is used for material application. By eliminating the use of a torch, workers are

removed from the exposure to a fire hazard.

Additional safety hazards that were identified for green roof construction and

conventional roof construction were very similar. These cannot be used as evidence to

suggest that green roof construction has a positive impact on worker safety. For

example, workers are exposed to the same safety hazards associated with lifting either

green roof or conventional roof materials to the roof using a crane. Workers are also

exposed to relatively the same fall hazards with regards to green roof construction and

conventional built-up or modified bitumen roof construction.

Photovoltaic System

The safety hazards that were identified in the interviews suggest that photovoltaic

system installation has a negative impact on worker safety. This is because workers are

at constant exposure to shock hazards during installation. Once the photovoltaic panels

are mounted on the roof and sunlight is present, electrical current is being produced in

which workers are at potential risk of getting shocked.

Another negative impact on worker safety was in regards to the weight and

shape of the PV panels. The PV panels weigh around 40-50 pounds and can cause









back injuries and/or muscle strains when being lifted. In addition, serious injury, such as

broken bones and contusions, can occur if a PV panel is dropped onto a worker. The

large shape of the PV panel poses the threat of a worker being pushed off balance from

the panel catching wind while being moved. This could cause the worker to fall down on

the roof or fall off the roof, sustaining a serious or fatal injury.

The last main safety hazard that was directly related to PV system installation

that suggests a negative impact on worker safety is exposure to tripping hazards.

Sections of the electrical wiring that connect the sets of PV panels that are exposed are

elevated just enough off the roof to cause a worker to trip when moving around. In

addition to the electrical wiring being a tripping hazard is the railing that the PV panels

are mounted to. The rails protrude about four to six inches from the PV panels and

could cause a worker to trip if they are walking too close. Since there is limited amount

of workspace available on the roof when installing the PV panels, the potential for a

worker tripping over electrical wires or the PV mounting rails is increased.

Non-Petroleum-Based Roofing

The information solicited from the interviews suggests that constructing non-

petroleum-based roofing has a positive impact on worker safety. Single-ply systems that

use PVC or thermoplastic membrane materials were identified as being non-petroleum-

based roofing systems. The PVC or thermoplastic membranes have a reduced impact

on worker health and safety because they do not off gas and do not require extensive

heating measures, such as an open-flame torch, for application to the solid

underlayment. Workers are not exposed to toxic inhalants and are not at risk to burn

injuries from a torch. With the conventional built-up and modified bitumen roofing

systems, which are petroleum-based, the membrane materials emit fumes and require a









torch for application. Workers are at potential risk of inhaling the toxic fumes and are

exposed to a fire hazard from the torch. Specifically, with a built-up roof, the petroleum-

based roofing material used is hot asphalt. Hot asphalt not only off gases, which

exposes workers to a toxic inhalant, but also is heated to temperatures high enough to

cause severe burn injuries to workers if they come in contact with it.

Future Research Recommendations

This research has revealed primary safety concerns associated with constructing

ICFs, green roofs, photovoltaic systems, and non-petroleum-based roofing. In future

research, the use of a survey along with the expert interviews is recommended to

identify additional safety hazards associated with the selected sustainable building

components. The use of a survey would expand the amount of data gathered with

regards to safety hazards to make a more accurate assessment as to whether the

selected sustainable building components have a negative or positive impact on worker

safety. It is also recommended that safety representatives be selected as participants

for future expert interviews since this study did not include any safety expert

interviewees.









APPENDIX A
ICF WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA


















Construction Activity: ICF Wall Construction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS



Sequence of Bsic Job Tasks Tools/Equpment Reqred Poential Hazards Preentative Action or Procedre

Mark perimeter of foundation with chalk line, string, or Chalkline reel, 2 x 4 lumber, hacksaw Cut injuries from hacksaw or table saw; eye Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
temporary 2x4 bracing on foundation for ICF block alignment or table saw, concrete screws, electric injuries from saw dust/particles; trip hazards cutting 2x4s;clear work area of any potential trip hazards: keep work area neat and organized;
drill clear scrap pieces of 2x4 bracing

Place ICF blocks at corners, lay first courseof blocks around Hacksaw, heat gun/hot knife Cut injuriesfrom hacksaw; burn injuries from Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
entire perimeter heatgun/hot knife; trip hazards cutting ICF blocks; keep stockpile of ICF blocks away from immediate work area, only have
necessary amount in workspace needed for first courseof blocks and atcornersto reduce
potential for trip hazard

Continue laying additional coursesof ICF blocks; Place Hacksaw, heatgun/hot knife, cutter Cut injuries from hacksaw; burn injuriesfrom Makesuretowear proper PPEwhen using cutter bender for rebar and when cutting ICF blocks;
vertical rebar every48", place horizontal rebar everyoneto bender (rebar), wiretie, wiresnips, heatgun/hot knife; trip hazards; fall hazards if position body in proper mannerto reduce the potential for muscle injurywhen bending or cutting
two feet or as required scaffolding scaffolding is used; muscle strains and back rebar; do not pull cutter bender towards body-push away from body to prevent injury; keep heat
injurieswhen cuttingor bending rebar; falling gunshot knife away from extremeties;when scaffolding is used makesureto keepwork area clear
objects of any trip hazards; inspect scaffolding daily
Install temporary wall bracing with 2x4's on all walls and Hacksaw or table saw, heatgun/hot Cut injuries from hacksaw or table saw; eye Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
openings whilecontinuing laying additional courses knife, 2x4 lumber, hammer, nails injuries from saw dust/particles; trip hazards; cutting 2x4s; When installing the temporary bracing, makesurethat workers around are aware if
injuryfrom hammer; fallingobjects working above

Block all window and door openings with pressure treated Hacksaw or table saw, pressure Cut injuriesfrom hacksaw or table saw; falling Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
lumber treated lumber objects cutting pressure treated lumber
Once wall is at specified hieght, seal joints of ICF blocks with Foam sealant Off-gassingfrom sealant If foam sealant used generates toxic fumes, makesure to stay in well ventilated area; if working
foam sealant to secure blocks until concrete is poured inside with little or no air movement, use a large shop fan for fresh air


Place 2x4 bracing on topof wall and secure it to the ICF steel Hacksaw or table saw, 2x4 lumber, Cut injuriesfrom hacksaw or table saw; eye Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
furrings and side bracing to help keep forms in place during ladder injuries from saw dust particles; fallingobjects; cutting 2x4s; If a ladder is required, make sure to securelytiethe ladder offto a solid structure; If
pouring of concrete fall hazard working at a higher elevation, such ason a ladder, be aware of workers below and conciousof the
materials and tools you areworkingwith

Pour concrete with chute or boom truck in 4-foot increments Boom truck or chute Skin irritation from concrete; harmful inhalants Makesuretowear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; longsleeves, work boots) when working with
from mixing concrete; If mixingof concrete is required, makesureto wearsometypeof respiratory protection


Level off topof wall after top increment is poured with Ladder Falling objects; fall hazards Keep anchor boltssecure when working on ladder to prevent any from falling below; Make sure to
concrete and insert anchor bolts for the top plate for roof securely tie ladder off if one is needed
construction









APPENDIX B
CMU WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA


















Construction Activity: CMU Wall Construction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS



Sequence of Basic Job Tasks Tools/Equipment Required Potemial Hazards Prerita Action or Procedure

ocatecorners of the building; mark perimeter of foundation Chalkline reel, string Trip hazards Clear work area of any potential trip hazards keep work area neat and organized; be aware of
with string or chaklinefor alignment of CMU blocks alignmentstakes (if used) and strings


Place one course of CMU blocks at each corner to determine Concrete/masonry saw Back injuries/musclestrains; severe bodily Make sure towear proper PPE [safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots,
he extent to which the units have to be cut to accommodate injury from saw blade;, flying objects: dust respiratory gear) when cutting CMU blocks; Use proper lifting techniques when lifting and placing
the horizontal coursing; make necessary cuts to fit CMU particles and concrete fragments; eye injuries, CMU blocks, i e, lift with legs instead of back; When cutting CMU blocks, make sure to position self
blocks for the corners inhalation of dust particles in opposite direction of the path of projected fragments and dust from saw blade; keep
extremities clear of spinning saw blade

Spread a thick bed of mortar on the foundation for the first Mixer, bucket/wheelbarrow, trowel, Skin irritation from caustic grout; Inhalation of Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots,
course of CMU blocks to ensure enough mortar will be along concrete/masonry saw dust generated from mixing grout back respiratory gear) Use proper lifting techniques when moving and placing CMU blocks
the bottom edge of the face shells and web of the blocks injuries/muscle strains



Afterfirst course is laid, build up each cornerof thewall to Mixer, bucket/wheelbarrow, trowel, Fallingobjects; fall hazard; back When laying CMU blocks, makesure that workers around are aware of work above; if scaffolding is
the height of the center of the wall specified; Each course ladder/scaffolding it necessary) injuries/muscle strains erected/necessary make sure to tie-off if required and clear work space of any trip hazards; use
shall be stepped back by one-half unit proper liftingtechniqueswhen laying CMU blocks


Stretch line from corner to corner to ensure additional Scaffolding, bucket, trowel Falling objects; fall hazard; skin irritation; back Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
courses are plumb and true; Start to lay blocks between each injuries/muscle strains; cuts and scrapes from mixing and/or placing grout keep stockpile of CMU blocks away from immediate work area, only
corner; Construct wall in 4-foot lifts, or every courses; CMU blocks; trip hazard have necessary amount in workspace needed for first course of blocks and at corners to reduce
Mortar joints shall be 3/8" thick; potential for trip hazard; Be aware of potential objects that could fall from scaffolding or elevated
position; Contact with CMU blocks can cause skin abrasions: handle CMU blocks properly to avoid
injury


Place horizontal and vertical rebar as each course is Scaffolding, cutter bender (rebar), wire Falling objects; fall hazard; back Make sure to wear proper PPE when using cutter bender for rebar and when cutting ICF blocks;
constructed horizontal rebar every 16" (every other course), tie, wire snips injuries/muscle strains Ifrom bending or cutting position body in proper manner to reduce the potential for muscle injury when bending or cutting
vertical rebar every 48" rebar), trip hazard rebar, do not pull cutter bender towards body-push away from body to prevent injury, when
scaffolding is used makesure to keep work area clearof any trip hazards; inspect scaffolding daily



Place additional vertical rebar at every corner and opening as Scaffolding, cutter bender, chute or Falling objects; fall hazard; back Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
required; Pour column with concrete every 48" boom truck, trowel, wire tie, wire injuries/muscle strains skin irritation; mixing and/or placing grout position body in proper manner to reduce the potential for muscle
snips inhaltion of dust generated from mixing grout injury when bending or cutting rebar; do not pull cutter bender towards body-push away from body
to prevent injury; When pouring concrete column in CMU wall, alert any workers below of actions to
avoid injury from anyfallingobjects

CutMU blocks to size for all window and door openings; Scaffolding, concrete/masonry saw, Falling objects; fall hazard; back Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves; long sleeves if necessary, work boots) when
Place lintel blocks for window and door openings: place cutter bender, bucket, trowel injuries/muscle strains;skin irritation; cutting CMU blocks; When cutting CMU blocks, makesure to position self in opposite direction of
horizontal rebar and fill with concrete inhaltion of dust generated from mixing the path of projected fragments and dust from saw blade; keep extremities clear of spinning saw
groutsevere bodily injury from saw blade; flying blade
objects: concrete fragments causing eye injuries


Place final courses to achieve specified wall height Scaffolding, concrete/masonry saw. Falling objectsfall hazard; back Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves long sleeves, work boots) when working with
cuter bender, bucket, trowel injuries/musclestrains;skin irritation; grout; If mixing of grout is required, make sure towearsome type of respiratory protection; clear
inhaltion of dust generated from mixing grout area of potential falling objects and trip hazards









APPENDIX C
SINGLE-PLY WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA
















Construction Actiity: Single-Ply Roof Construction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS


Job Tasks (ijstedo Sequence) Toot/Equinment Required Potenialf Hazards Preventative Action or Procdure

Mechanically fasten preformed roof insulation board to roof Mechanical fastener power tool, a Fall hazards, b Falling objects, c Trip hazard, a If no parapet wall is present, make sure follow proper tie-off measures, properlytie ladder offto
deck mechanical fasteners, electrical d Electrical shock, e Cut injuries from utility building structure, b keep area clean and free of debris to prevent objects from falling off the roof;
extension cord, ground-fault circuit knife secure mechanical fastener powertool to roof structure to prevent itfrom falling off the roof; c Make
interrupter (GFCI), utility knife sure to keep all electrical cords coiled up if not in use, if the cords are in use keep them as
organized as possible to help prevent a worker from tripping, d Make sure to plug electrical cord
into a GFCI before using any power tools to prevent possible electrical shock, e Make sure to wear
durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down single-py membrane (EPDM, PVC, orTPO)on top Utility knife a Cut injuries from knife a Make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots),
of Insulation board make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from
body


Loose laid system Lay down smooth aggregate ballast over Bucket for ballast a Back injuriesmuscle strains a Make sure to use proper lifting techniques (lIft with legs, not with back) when lifting buckets of
single-ply membrane aggregate andspreading




Bond together adjoining sheets with manufacturers sealant a Off-gassing from solvent-based adhesives (if a If water-based adhesives are not used and solvent-based adhessives are, wear respiratory
used) protection irfumes are concentrated,



Mechanically fastened system Mechanically fasten Mechanical fastener power tool, a Trip hazard, b Electrical shock a Make sure to keep all electrical cords coiled up if not in use, if the cords are in use keep them as
membrane to structural deck, place metal batten bars at mechanical fasteners, electrical organized as possible to help prevent a worker from tripping, b Make sure to plug electrical cord
specified intervals and screw membrane to the deck extension cord, ground-fault circuit into a GFCI before using any power tools to prevent possible electrical shock
interrupter (GFCI)



Adheredsystem Appy adhesivelsolvent to underside of a Off-gassing from solvent-based adhesives(if a Ifwater-basedadhesives are not used and solvent-based adhessives are, wear respiratory
single-ply membrane and press the membrane down, used) protection iffumes are concentrated,
securing it to the insulation layer









APPENDIX D
BUILT-UP ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA
















Construction Activity: Built-Up Roof Construction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS


Job Tasks (Listedm Sequence) Tools/Equpment Req red Potendal Hazards Preventatnve Acton orProcedure

Nail down ormechanicallyfasten basesheetto roof structure Hammer, nails, mechanical fastener a Fall Hazards, b Falling objects a If no parapet wall is present, make sure follow propertie-off measures, b Make sure to alert
power tool, mechanical fasteners workers below when using a hammer and nail in case either one falls, keep area clean and free of
debree to prevent objects from falling off the roof

Place first layer of preformed roof insulation board over roof Adhesive, hot-asphalt bucket, mop, a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wearsome type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
deck with base sheet and bond t with either hot bitumen or utility knife injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots)when working with the hot
an adhesive knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Mop down the first insulation board layer with hot asphalt Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wearsome type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
injuries from hot asphalt PPE safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots)when working with the hot
ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket andwhen mopping


Place second layer of preformed roof insulation board over Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
first insulation board and mop down with hot asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down asphalt-coated base sheet and mop down with hot Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket andwhen mopping, c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down first layer of#4 asphalt glass fiber felt and mop Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
down with hot asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down second layer of#4 asphalt glass fiberfelt and mop Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
down with hot asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket andwhen mopping, c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down third layer of #4 asphalt glass fiber felt and mop Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
down with hot asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down fourth layer of#4 asphalt glass fiber felt and mop Hot-asphalt bucket, mop, utllty knife a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
down with hot asphalt injuries from hot asphalt, c Cut injuries from PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
knife ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Make sure to
wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Flood-coat the top of the roof with the hot-bitumen and lay the Hot-asphalt bucket, mop a Off-gassing from adhesive or asphalt, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
aggregate ballast in it injuries from hot asphalt, c Back PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots) when working with the hot
injurles/muscle strains ashpalt, keep as much distance as possible from the bucket and when mopping c Use proper
lifting techniques when working with bags/buckets of aggregate ballast to place in the hot-bitumen
top coat









APPENDIX E
MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA
















Construction Activity: Modified Bitumen RoofConstruction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS


Job Tasks (Lised in Sequence) ToolsEqigpmentReqiwred Potential Hazards Preventative Acton or Procedore

Mechanically fasten preformed roof insulation board to roof Mechanical fastener powertool, a Fall hazards, b Falling objects, c Trip hazard, a If no parapet wall Is present, make sure follow propertie-off measures, properly tie ladder off to
deck mechanical fasteners, electrical d Electrical shock, e Cut injuries from utility building structure, b keep area clean and free of debris to prevent objects from falling off the roof
extension cord, ground-fault circuit knife secure mechanical fastener power tool to roof structure to prevent it from falling off the roof; c Make
interrupter(GFCI), utility knife sure to keep all electrical cords coiled up if not in use, if the cords are in use keepthem as
organized as possible to help prevent worker from tripping, d Make sure to plug electrical cord
into a GFCI before using any powertools to prevent possible electrical shock, e Make sure to wear
durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body

Lay down asphalt-coated base sheet and secure t to Adhesive (if not self-adhering sheet), a Off-gassing from adhesive, b Cut injuries a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
insulation board (may be self-adhering or require use of utility knife from knife PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots), make sure to wear durable
adhesive) enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body


Lay down the modified bitumen sheets which has the Utllty knife a Cut injuries from knife a Make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from
bitumen substance on the bottom surface body



Torch down each sheet of modified bitumen ply as it is laid Propane torch a Off-gassing from bitumen sheet, b Burn a If fumes are concentrated, wear some type of respiratory protection, b Make sure to wear proper
out injuries from torch, c Fire hazard PPE (safety glasses, gloves, long sleeves and pants, work boots)when working with the propane
torch, alwyas keep flame directed away from body, especially the feet, c Keep fire extinguisher
within 25 feet of open-flame torch, keep torch flame away from any combustible materials









APPENDIX F
GREEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA
















Construction Activity: Green Roof Construction JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS


Job Tasks (Listedm Sequence) Toos/Equipment Required Potenial Hazards Preventative Acon orProcedure

Place the root barrier on the waterproof membrane roof Utility knife a Fall Hazards, b Cut injuries from knife a If no parapet wall is present, make sure follow proper tie-off measures, b Make sure to wear
durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from body


Place insulation layer on top of root barrier Utility knife a Cut injuries from knife a Make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from
body


Lay down the synthetic or natural drainage layer (porous mat) Utility knife c Cut injuries from knife a Make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from
body




Lay down separation fabric on top of drainage layer Utility knife c Cut injuries from knife a Make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut, always cut away from
body



Hoist up growing medium/soil substrate to roof Truckwith boom crane or lull a Falling objects a Make sure to properly rig heavy bags of sol, stay clear of elevated materials when being hoisted
to roof- do not stand underneath hoisted materials, always have a tag line attached to hoisted
materials to guide itwhen being set down onto roof


Spread growing medium/soil substrate out evenly among the Shovel, rake, utility knife a Back injuriesimuscle strains, b Cut injuries a Use proper lifting techniques (liftwith legs and notwith back)when moving heavy bags of
separation fabric from knife growing media/soil, b Make sure to wear durable enough gloves to help reduce risk of being cut
when opening bags of media, always cut away from body



Hoist up vegetation Extensive systems plants, shrubs, Truckwith boom crane, lull a Falling objects a Make sure to properly rig trees and heavy pots with plants, stay clear of elevated materials when
grass, Intensive systems plants, shrubs, grass, trees being hoistedto roof- do not stand underneath hoisted materials, always have atag line attached
to hoisted materials to guide it when being set down onto roof


Plantvegetation materials in growing medium/soil substrate Shovel, rake, truck with boom crane or a Back injuriesimuscle strains, b Bodily a Use proper lifting techniques (liftwith legs and notwith back)when moving and planting heavy
lull injuries from heavy trees and potted plants vegetation materials, b When large trees and potted plants are being plantedset down into media
and have to utilize a crane or lull, make sure to stay clear of the objects when they are still elevated-
keepsafe distance away in case tree falls over or rigging malfunctions









APPENDIX G
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION JSA

















Construction Activty: Photovoltaic System Installation JOB SAFETY ANALYSIS


Job Tasks (Listedin Sequence) Tools/Equfpnent Required Potenial Hazards Prevenative Acuon or Procedure

Make roof penetrations for installation of aluminum L-brakets Electric drill with bit a Fall hazards a If no parapet wall is present or on sloped roof, make sure follow proper tieoff measures,
properlytie ladder off to building structure, make sure to wear proper PPE (safety glasses, gloves)
when drilling into roof
Apply polyurethane sealantto roof penetrations then bolt Electric drill a Pinch hazards a Wear protective gloves and keep clear of pinch points
down aluminum L-brackets


Bolt aluminum mounting rails to L-brackets Electric drillrachet a Trip hazards a Make sure to identify L-brackets installedto avoid tripping when moving around roof to install
mounting rails




Hoist PV panels to roof Truckwith boom crane or lull a Falling objects a Make sure to properly securefrig PV panels when lifting them upto roof stay clear ofPV panel
when being lifted and do not stand underneath hoisted panel



Set PV panels on mounting rails None a Back nmuriesJmuscle strains, b Fall hazard, a Use proper lifting technique (lift with legs, not back)when setting PV panels onto mounting rails,
c Trip hazard b Make sure to properly tie-offwhen handling panels in case of becoming off-balance or strong
gusts of wind are presentto prevent being thrown off the roof orfalling down on the roof, c Clear
area of any loose objectstoolsimaterials when setting the PV panels to prevent tripping




Secure PV panels to mounting rals with hold-down clamps Rachet or electric drill a Pinch hazards a Wear protective gloves and keep clear of pinch points





Install PV combiner boxes and inverter Electr c drilllrachet None None




Solar contractor Install system wiring ground wiring and DC None a Electrical shock a If FV panels are not covered when installed and sunlight is present, make sure to wear protective
wiring gloves to prevent electrical shock from the DC current generated




Electrician Install ACwiring from inverter to main service None a Electrical shock a If PV panels are not covered when installed and sunlight is present, make sure to wear protective
panel gloves to prevent electrical shock from the ACcurrent generated









LIST OF REFERENCES


American Technical Publishers, (2007). "System Components and Configurations."
Photovoltaic Systems, 85-384.

Cervarich, B. M., (2009). "Warm-Mix Asphalt: Preventing Exposure at Its Source."
Prevention through Design: Green, Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Issue 5, 2-5.

Gambatese, J., and Behm, M., (2009). "Making 'Green' Safe." Prevention through
Design: Green, Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), Issue 5, 8-9.

Harte, A., (2009). "Safe and Green Building Design." Prevention through Design: Green,
Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH), Issue 5, 1-2.

Miller, R., Miller, M. R., (2005). "Alternative Types of Foundations." Miller's Guide to
Foundations and Sitework. 148-157.

Simmons, L. H., (2007). "Chapter 7: Thermal and Moisture Protection." Olin's
Construction: Principles, Materials, and Methods.8th ed., 427-556.

Spence, W. P., (1998). "Concrete and Masonry: Part III." Construction Materials,
Methods, and Techniques, 120-311.

Spence, W. P., (1998). "Thermal and Moisture Protection, Doors, Windows, and
Finishes: Part V." Construction Materials, Methods, and Techniques, 620-694.

Toolbase Services, (2001). "Residential Green Roof Systems." Home Building
Technical Information Resources Builders Construction Remodeling Innovations.
Web. 07 May 2010. roofs>.

Wark, C. and Wark, W., 2003, "Green Roof Specifications and Standards." The
Construction Specifier, Vol. 56, No. 8, September 2004,
http://www.greenroofs.com/pdfs/Newl inks-803_construction_specifier. pdf.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Brent Olson was born in Titusville, Florida. He graduated from Astronaut High

School in 2003 and then attended Brevard Community College from 2003 until 2005

where he received his Associate of Arts degree. Brent then attended the University of

Florida from 2005 until 2008 where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Food

Science and Human Nutrition. He then began attending the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of

Building Construction in 2008. Brent has worked as an intern for W.W. Gay Mechanical

Contractors and TIC The Industrial Company. Upon receiving his master's degree in

building construction, Brent plans to begin his career in the industrial construction

industry as an entry level field engineer with TIC The Industrial Company.





PAGE 1

IMPACTS OF SELECTED SUSTAINABL E BUILDING COMPONENTS ON CONSTRUCTION WORKER SAFETY By BRENT C. OLSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2010 1

PAGE 2

2010 Brent C. Olson 2

PAGE 3

To my mom and step dad For all the lo ve and support you have provided throughout my life 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my family and fr iends for always being by my side during tough times. I would also like to thank Dr. Jimmie Hinze and Dr. James Sullivan for their expertise and dedication to allow me to co mplete this research. These people have made it possible for me to excel in my studies and accomplish my goals. 4

PAGE 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDG MENTS..................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................7LIST OF FI GURES..........................................................................................................8ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUC TION....................................................................................................11Backgroun d.............................................................................................................11Statement of Purpose.............................................................................................11Research Ob jectives...............................................................................................122 LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................................................13Introducti on.............................................................................................................13Wall Syst ems..........................................................................................................13Insulated Conc rete Form..................................................................................13CMU.................................................................................................................15Roof Syst ems.........................................................................................................17Single-P ly.........................................................................................................17Built-Up Ro ofing...............................................................................................20Modified Bi tumen..............................................................................................21Green Syst ems.......................................................................................................23Green R oof....................................................................................................... 23Photovoltaic System.........................................................................................25Warm-Mix As phalt..................................................................................................27Green Building Design and Construc tion................................................................293 METHOD OLOGY...................................................................................................404 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS....................................................................................44Insulated Concrete Form (ICF)...............................................................................44Expert Interv iew On e........................................................................................44Expert Interv iew Two........................................................................................45Expert Intervie w Thre e.....................................................................................47Green R oof.............................................................................................................48Expert Interv iew On e........................................................................................48Expert Interv iew Two........................................................................................49Expert Intervie w Thre e.....................................................................................50 5

PAGE 6

Photovoltaic System...............................................................................................52Expert Interv iew On e........................................................................................52Expert Interv iew Two........................................................................................53Expert Intervie w Thre e.....................................................................................54Non-Petroleum-Bas ed Roof ing...............................................................................555 CONCLUSIONS AND RE COMMENDAT IONS.......................................................58Conclusi ons............................................................................................................58ICF...................................................................................................................58Green R oof....................................................................................................... 59Photovoltaic System.........................................................................................60Non-Petroleum-Bas ed Roof ing.........................................................................61Future Research Recommendati ons......................................................................62 APPENDIX A ICF WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA..........................................................................63B CMU WALL CONSTR UCTION JS A........................................................................65C SINGLE-PLY WALL CO NSTRUCTION JSA...........................................................67D BUILT-UP ROOF CO NSTRUCTION JSA...............................................................69E MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF CONSTRUCTIO N JSA.............................................71F GREEN ROOF CONS TRUCTION JSA..................................................................73G PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION JSA..................................................75LIST OF RE FERENCES...............................................................................................77BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................78 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Green Element s and Safe ty................................................................................41 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Types of ICF system s.........................................................................................332-2 Perimeter bracing on foundation for ICF fo rm....................................................332-3 ICF wall bracing..................................................................................................342-4 Window blocked in with pressure-treat ed lum ber...............................................342-5 Corner CMU units without mo rtar.......................................................................352-6 Corner CMU uni ts...............................................................................................352-7 EPDM single-ply r oof system detail ....................................................................362-8 Mechanically fastened singleply roof system detai l...........................................362-9 Built-up roof detail...............................................................................................372-10 Torch-down techniqu e........................................................................................372-11 Typical modified bitum en roof syste m detail.......................................................382-12 Green roof system..............................................................................................382-13 Components of a PV a rray.................................................................................392-14 Photovoltaic mounting det ail. ..............................................................................39 8

PAGE 9

Abstract of Thesis Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulf illment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Construction IMPACTS OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDI NG COMPONENT CONSTRUCTION ON WORKER SAFETY By Brent C. Olson August 2010 Chair: Jimmie W. Hinze Co chair: James G. Sullivan Major: Building Construction With any type of construction activity that is performed there are always associated health and safety hazards. Specific ally, these safety and health hazards are directly related to constructing specific components of a building. With the built environment becoming sustainable, convent ional building com ponents are being substituted with components t hat are more energy-efficient and have reduced impacts on the environment. There is a limited amount of informat ion available regarding the safety impacts associated with installing spec ific sustainable building components. This study focused on identifying the safety hazards associated with selected components that are decidedly different in their mode of installation, namely constructing insulated concrete forms (ICF), green roofs, phot ovoltaic systems, and non-petroleum-based roofing systems. These system s were examined to dete rmine whether there is a negative or positive impact of the sust ainable products on worker safety. Eleven interviews conducted with experts familiar with the selected sustainable building components. The interviews identif ied the primary health and safety hazards 9

PAGE 10

associated with constructing the su stainable components and conventional components. The results of this study suggest that there is a negativ e impact on worker safety with regards to photovoltaic system in stallation and a positive impact with regards to ICF, green roof, and non-petrol eum-based roofing construction. 10

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Sustainable construction is on the ver ge of becoming an indus try standard in the commercial and residential markets. With th e rapid growth of sustainable technology, newer and more innovative sustainable building products are frequently being introduced into construction. New building tec hnologies come with a learning curve, in the aspect of function, constructability, and especia lly safety. It is impo rtant that safety is always kept a top priority in construction. This study aims to identify the health and safety hazards associated with sustainable c onstruction activities to help devise safer practices in the future. Statement of Purpose This research targets the safety hazard s associated with constructing sustainable structures in commercial and residential co nstruction. Although sustainable buildings are becoming a larger part of the built environment, certai n components of the building are still relatively new technology. Workers who construct these newer building components are subjected to unfamiliar cond itions and safety hazards. The safety hazards associated with constructing c onventional building components are more familiar to workers because they have been ar ound longer. This study sought to identify the health and safety hazards associated with constructing specific building components of a sustainable structure. T hey were then compared to the health and safety hazards associated with constructing the conventional building component to finally conclude if worker safety is positively or negatively impacted with regards to sustainable building component construction. 11

PAGE 12

Research Objectives The objective of this study is to determi ne if there is a positive or negative impact on worker safety when constructing sustaina ble building components by identifying the health and safety hazards associated. 12

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Whenever any construction activity is performed there is always some level of risk associated with the safety and health ha zards. These construction tasks that are particularly hazardous and materials that pose health risks have been researched to devise safer practices. The following sections describe the sustainable and conventional components and the construction processes involved. Wall Systems Insulated Concrete Form Insulated concrete forms are permanent fo rms consisting of specific types of insulation that act as the fo rming material for poured-concrete walls. The most common types of insulation material are high-density expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam and extruded polystyrene (XEPS) foam. These foam blocks are stacked together like building blocks without mortar before the concrete is poured. Once the blocks are assembled, reinforced, and braced, concrete is poured into the intermediate cavity to create an integral wall that is structurally sound. This type of wall system provides insulation properties that exceed those of c onventionally-built walls utilizing relatively small amounts of concrete. There are three types of ICF systems: plank, panel, and block systems. These systems vary in sizes and connection methods Of the three ICF systems, panel is the largest which is usually 4 by 8 in size. Th is type of system allows for more wall area to be erected in less time but may require more cutting. Connection of panels to one another is done with fasteners such as glue, wir e, or plastic channel. Plank systems are 13

PAGE 14

usually 8 feet long with narrow planks of foam (Miller, 2005). These pieces of foam are separated by steel or plastic ti es embedded in the insulation during the manufacturing process. Block systems consist of units ranging from an 8 x 16 block to a 16 high by 4 long block, which is the typical unit used. The blocks connect with one another by interlocking along the edge with a tongue and groove configuration, and stack together similar to the concept of childrens Lego blocks (Miller, 2005). Block systems are the most common among the thr ee ICF systems. The three types of ICF systems are represented in Figur e 2-1. The process of constructing an ICF wall be gins with marking the perimeter of the wall foundation with a chalk line or string to guide the placement of the foam blocks. Another useful technique to guide the placem ent of the blocks and to prevent movement is to place temporary braces, such as 2 x 4s, along the foundation. The 2 x 4s should be secured to the foundation and wil l act as a track for the fi rst course of ICF blocks. This is shown in Figur e 2-2. Once the perimeter of the foundation is ma rked, placement of the foam blocks can occur. Placing the foam blocks should start at the corners and work towards the center of the wall. One course of the ICF blocks should be laid around the entire perimeter. Once the first course of ICF blocks is laid continue laying blocks in a staggered pattern so that the vertical joints of the blocks do not line up from one course to the next. In addition, concurrently place horizontal rebar ev ery one to two feet, or every other course of block, as required (Miller, 2005). As the forms are stack ed, temporary bracing of all walls and openings is needed to keep the ICF walls plumb and square during the concrete pour and to support the weight of the concrete until it achieves the desired 14

PAGE 15

strength (Toolbase Services, 2001). Bracing is needed at corners, window and door openings, periodically along the length of the wa ll, and at the top of the forms. Typical vertical bracing should occur at 6-foot inte rvals along the wall as well at all window and door openings. Vertical bracing is shown in Figure 2-3. When encountering a door or window, cut the ICF blocks with a hand saw for the openings. A hand saw or hot knife can be used to cut the blocks for electrical conduit and plumbing space. Openings for windows and doors should be blocked with pressuretreated lumber to contain the concrete when it is poured (Miller, 2005). This is shown in Figure 2-4. After the ICF blocks are stacked to the s pecified wall height, place 2 x 4 bracing on the top and secure it to the ICF steel fu rring strips and the side bracing to keep the forms in place during the pouring of concrete In addition, seal the joints of the ICF blocks with a foam sealant to help secure the blocks until the concrete is poured. It is essential to properly brace the foam walls to prevent a blow-out from occurring because of the lightweight nature of the ICF blocks. The last step in constructing an ICF wall is to pour the concrete. Pouring the walls should be done in 4-foot increm ents with a chute or a boom pump truck or per manufacturers instructions. After the last increment of concrete is poured and is leveled off to the top of the wall, anchor bolts should be set for the top plate for roof constr uction. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing an ICF wall c an be found in Appendix A. CMU Concrete masonry units are one of the most widely used construction materials (Spence, 1998). They are molded concrete units used in building construction as an integral par t of the structure, as facing for or filler panel s between structural elements, 15

PAGE 16

and to construct partitions (Simmons, 2007) Concrete masonry units are made of mixtures of portland cement, aggregates, wate r, and sometimes admixtures. The typical block used for CMU wall construction has a nom inal size of 8 inches x 8 inches x 16 inches and weighs around 40 pounds. Constructing a reinforced CMU block wall fi rst begins with locating the corners of the building. Once the corner s are identified, place the CMU blocks so that they are spaced out to determine the extent to which the units must be cut to accommodate the horizontal coursing. This is shown in Figure 2-5. The corner unit is laid first and carefully placed in its correct position (Simmons, 2007). After several units have been laid, it is then necessary to use a straight edge to verify that the units are in correct alignment. All mortar joints should be 3/8 inch thick except for the first course of units, which should be a thi ck bed of mortar spread out on the foundation to ensure that there will be enough mortar along the bottom edge of the face shells and web of the block (Simmons, 2007). After the first c ourse has been laid, the corners of the wall are built before the rest of the wall is laid. The corners are started by laying up several courses higher than the center of the wall. Each course should be stepped back by one-half unit. Make sure that afte r every course is laid the alignment is plumb and level. An example of laying t he corners is shown in Figure 2-6. The next step involves layi ng blocks between the corners. Before lying any blocks between the corners, a line shou ld be stretched from corner to corner for each course. Then lay the top outside edge of the units to this line to ensure additional courses are plumb and true. Continue laying blocks while placing vertic al and horizontal rebar at their specified spacing. Typical horizontal r ebar spacing is every other course, or every 16

PAGE 17

16 inches, and vertical rebar placement is every 48 inches. Note that additional rebar is required at all corners and openings. In additi on to the vertical rebar placed every 48 inches is a column that must be poured. Every 48 inches concrete must be poured down one of the cavities of a CMU block to form an internal solid column. This column serves to add stability to the wall to support loads and resist shear forces. When encountering window and door openings, blocks will have to be sized correctly to create the specified opening and should be cut with a concrete or masonry saw. Window and door openings additionally requir e CMU lintel blocks which serve as structural support for superior loads. These lintel blocks are a U-shaped block that gets completely filled with concrete and horizontal rebar. The CMU blocks are typically constructed in 4-foot lifts, or ev ery 6 courses. CMU block walls do not have the capability to be constructed to unlimited heights on a continuous basis because of stability iss ues. An important issue with regards to constructing a CMU block wall is the relati onships between the masons, plumbers, and electricians. All three of these parties mu st have good communication with each other in order to stay on schedule and cons truct the wall as specified. Plumbers and electricians have to run conduit and pipe through the wall and must be on site at all times during wall construction in order to do this at t he right time. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing a CMU wall can be found in Appendix B. Roof Systems Single-Pl y Non-petroleum-based roofing is commonly c onstructed in the form of a single-ply membrane system. Single-ply roof systems consist of four basic components: insulation, single-ply membrane, flashing, and an adhesive. The insulation provides a 17

PAGE 18

stable substrate for the single-ply membr ane, which makes up the roof system. The adhesive bonds the ply to the substrate and t he flashing provides waterproofing around the roof perimeter, equip ment, and projections. Single-ply membranes are either thermose t or thermoplastic materials. Thermoset materials cure during the manufacturing process and can only be bonded to themselves with an adhesive. Thermoplastic materials do not completely cure during manufacturing and can be welded together, usually with a high-temperature air gun (Spence, 1998). The two commonly used thermoset membra nes used are chlorosulfated polyethylene (CSPE) and ethylene propylene diene monome r (EPDM). CPSE cures after it is installed and is resistant to ozone, sunlight, and most chemicals. EPDM membrane is an elastomeric compound produced from propy lene, ethylene, and diene monomer and has great resistance to weathering, ultrav iolet rays, abrasion, and ozone (Spence, 1998). The two common thermoplastic membrane materials used are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS). PVC membranes are made by the polymerization of vinyl chloride monomer, stabi lizers, and plasticizers. They are easy to bond, have good resistance to most weather conditions and fire. SBS membranes are produced by blending SBS with high-quality as phalt over a fiberglass mat (Spence, 1998). SBS membranes have good fire resist ance and can be applied with hot or cold asphalt or be torched. Single-ply roofing systems can be applied over almost any existing asphalt or builtup roofs. Single-ply roofs ar e either loose laid, mechani cally fastened, or fully adhered systems. Loose laid and ballasted single-ply systems are independent of the roof deck, which allows the structure to move without affecting the roofing. The loose laid 18

PAGE 19

membrane is secured to the underlying deck wit h ballast, which is most commonly large aggregate, to reduce the tendency of the roof to be uplifted fr om wind. The membrane is covered with insulation and a protective mat and then covered with the ballast. Loose laid roofing is placed over the substrates with only minimal fastening around the edges and at penetrations. Adjoining sheets shoul d be lapped and bonded together using the roofing manufacturers sealant (Simmons, 2007). An EPDM single-ply system is shown in Figure 2-7. Mechanically fastened systems are appli ed using either penetrating or nonpenetrating fasteners. The difference between the two is that the penetrating fasteners pass through the membrane in to the underly ing roof deck. Non-penetrating fasteners are anchored to the structural deck, and th e membrane is fastened to them using clamps or snap-on caps (Simmons, 2007). Another technique used is metal batten bars are placed at intervals on top of the me mbrane and then screwed to the deck. The metal batten bars are then covered with plastic cover strips by the use of an adhesive (Spence, 1998). Figure 2-8 shows a mechani cally fastened single-ply system with batten strips. Adhered single-ply sy stems are either fully adhered or parti ally adhered. In a fully adhered system, the membrane is completely attached to the underlayment using hotor cold-applied bitumen, co ld-applied adhesives, solvents by heating the back of the membrane, or by pressing self-adhering membrane in-place (Simmons, 2007). In a partially adhered system, the roofing membrane is laid into strips of bitumen, adhesive, or solvent and rolled, or is adhered by similar materials placed on the top plates of the fasteners that hold down the insulation (Simmons, 2007). The Job Safety Analysis 19

PAGE 20

(JSA) report associated with installing a single-ply roof system can be found in Appendix C. Built-Up Roofing Traditional built-up roofing systems consist of bitumen (asphalt or coal tar) usually applied over hot felts, which ma y be glass fiber, organic, or polyester, and a finished top surface, such as an aggregate or cap sheet (Spence, 1998). Built-up roofs on nailable roof decks consist of several layers. The firs t layer is the nailable roof deck, which is either wood, plywood, lightweight insulating concrete, or precast gypsum, with one ply of sheathing paper nailed to it. The next layer consists of three to five layers of and asphalt-coated felt, bonded with coatings of hot mopped bitumen (Spence, 1998). The last layer, which is the top coat, is then covered with roofing asphalt and gravel. Typical built-up roof construction on nonnailable decks, such as steel, precast concrete, and poured concrete, begins by bondi ng the insulation with hot bitumen or an approved adhesive. This is followed by layers of asphalt-saturated roofing felt and hot roofing asphalt. The layers of felt are laid in a full bed of hot asphalt and broomed in place. The roofing asphalt is brought to the site in a tank truck and heated in an asphalt kettle. The heated asphalt is pumped to a tank on the roof and moved to the area where workers are applying it. The next paragraph describes a more detailed process of installing a built-up roof. The process of installing a built-up roofing system first begins with nailing down or mechanically fastening a base sheet to the roof structur e. The next step involves placing the first layer of preformed roof insulation board which should be bonded with hot bitumen or an adhesive. Once the insulation is secure to the deck with the base sheathing paper, or vapor retarder, it s hould then be mopped down with hot asphalt. 20

PAGE 21

The next step is to place a second layer of the preformed roof insulation board down. This second layer of insulation is to then be mopped down with t he hot asphalt. After the two insulation layers have been sufficiently mopped down, the next step is to apply an asphalt-coated base sheet. This layer should be mopped down with hot asphalt. The next step involves multiple layers of asphal t glass fiber felt, which is most commonly four plies of #4 felt. The first layer of felt is placed on top of the mopped down base sheet and then mopped down with the hot asphalt. The preceding layers of asphalt fiber felt are applied in the same manner as the first one. After the desired number of felt layers are laid down and mopped with suffici ent asphalt, the top should be flood-coated with hot-bitumen, and t he aggregate ballast should be laid in it. If aggregate ballast is not specified or desired, ot her options include aggregate-surface asphalt felt, fiberglass cap sheet, or a glazed top-coat A built-up roof is shown in Figure 2-9. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with instal ling a built-up roof syst em can be found in Appendix D. Modified B itumen Modified bitumen membranes combine polymer-modified asphalt and a polyester or fiberglass mat, resulting in a product of exceptional strength The two membranes available are styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) and atactic polypropylene (APP). SBS sheets have a reinforcement mat coated with an elastomeric blend of asphalt and SBS rubber. APP membranes have a reinforcement mat coated with a blend of asphalt and APP plastic (Spence, 1998). The major di fference between the two is the blended asphalt used. The blends create a product th at has greater elongation, strength, and flexibility than traditional roofing asphalts. 21

PAGE 22

The SBS membranes are usually installed using hot asphalt as the bonding material. They are applied as cap sheets ov er a base of hot asphalt and roofing felts. The cap sheet, or SBS membrane, sometime s has a ceramic granule surface that protects it from the harsh ultraviolet light. It also is sometimes un-surfaced which has to be coated with asphalt and gravel to give it ultraviolet protection (Spence, 1998). APP products are applied by a method known as torch-down. The properties of the modified bitumen make this process possible because of the back coating of modified asphalt. The back coating is heated wit h a propane torch to the point at which it becomes able to bond the sheet to the substrate. These APP products cannot be installed with hot mopped asphalt (Spence, 1998). The torch-down technique is shown in Figure 2-10. The process of installing a modified bitumen roof system is simila r to a roof system except there are fewer layers and a torch is commonly used. The first step of installation involves laying down a preformed roof insu lation board and mechanically attaching it or nailing it to the roof deck. The next step is to lay down an asphalt-coated base sheet which may be self-adhering or may constitute the use of an approved adhesive to secure it to the insulation board. The last layer that is laid down is the modified bitumen sheet which has the bitumen substance on the bottom surface. A torch should then be used to heat the modified bitumen sheet so that the bitumen substance can adhere to the base sheet. The roof system is complete after all the modified bitumen sheets have been torched down. Figure 2-11 represents a typical modified bitumen roof system. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associ ated with installing a modified bitumen roof system can be found in Appendix E. 22

PAGE 23

Green Systems Green Roof A green roof is a special roof system consis ting of different types of vegetation and living plants. This type of roof is also te rmed a living or planted r oof (Toolbase Services, 2001). A green roof usually acts as a roof sys tem alone, but may also be an addition to an existing roof structure. The concept of a green roof has been around for many years but has not become popular until recently. Si nce the development of the LEED rating system from the U.S. Green Building Council, green roofs have gained much interest because of their environmentally friendly properties. They hel p to reduce the heat-island effect, reduce stormwater runoff, and in crease energy efficiency of a building. Green roof systems consist of four basic components: a waterproofing layer, a drainage layer, a growing medium, and vegeta tion (Toolbase Services, 2001). All green roof systems include these four basic components but some may also include root retention and irrigation system s. A green roof system is represented in Figure 2-12. There are two types of gr een roof systems: extensive and intensive. Extensive systems are the smaller of the two and have much less of an impact on the roof structure. They include low-lying plants such as succulents, mosses, and grasses, which usually make up a few inches of foliage, and require relatively thin layers of soil (1-6 inches). A complete extensive gr een roof system on average weighs in around 1050 pounds per square foot of r oof area. Extensive systems ar e most commonly used for residential applications. Intensive green roof systems are much larger than extensive systems. They usually feature deeper soil and can support lar ger plants including crops, shrubs, and trees (Toolbase Services, 2001). These systems weigh in the range of 80 23

PAGE 24

to more than 120 pounds per s quare foot. Maintenance is generally easier for extensive systems because of less vegetation. Installing a green roof syst em typically occurs on t op of a single-ply roofing system, such as TPO or EPDM. The process of constructing a green roof system first begins with installing the root barrier. The root barrier is usually in the form of a mat like surface, which may be sheets of rigid insula tion or thick plastic, copper foil, or a combination of materials (W ark, 2003). The root barrier serves to reduce the tendency of roots penetrating the membrane which would cause leakage. The next component installed is a rigid insulation board which is secured directly to the root barrier. The insulation is an optional component and is dependent upon certain building codes. The next part of the green r oof is the drainage and water storage layer. This layer typically consists of plastic sheets or synth etic porous mats. This drainage layer serves to prevent plant material from being drained fr om the system and also to store water to keep the vegetation saturated. The next layer t hat is installed is t he growing medium or soil substrate. This layer is the substrate that the vegetation will be planted in. Intensive systems will have deeper soil thicknesses than ex tensive systems. Installing this layer may require the use of a crane or some sort of lifting equipment to hoist the materials to the roof depending on the size and type of gr een roof system. An intensive green roof system would most likely require either a pneumatic boom truck to pump the media to the roof or a crane to hoist t he media to the roof in bags. T he last step in installing a green roof system is planting t he vegetation. Small plants and shrubs will be included in an extensive system, where la rge plants and trees will be in cluded in an extensive 24

PAGE 25

system. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing a green roof can be found in Appendix F. Photovoltaic Sy stem Photovoltaic is a solar energy technology t hat uses solar cells to directly convert solar radiation into electricity (American Technical Publishers, 2007). A photovoltaic system, commonly termed solar panel, is an electr ical system that consists of groups of solar cells which form a PV module. Groups of modules then make up what is known as a PV array. The most common PV system confi guration is a utility-connected system on a residential building (American Technica l Publishers, 2007). The components of a PV array are represented in Figure 2-13. The installation of PV systems req uires extensive electrical work and should be performed by a qualified pers on. A qualified person is a person with the skills and knowledge of the constructi on and operation of electrical equipment and installations and is trained to recognize the safety hazards involved (American Technical Publishers, 2007). Safety is a particular concern as electricity is generated as soon as sunlight exposure occurs; there is no on-off s witch. Training must include the use and inspection of personal prot ective equipment (PPE) and use of insulated tools and test equipment. Persons working on or near expos ed conductors must be able to identify exposed live parts and their voltage, asse ss the risks for the type of work to be performed, and determine the app ropriate PPE and other safe ty precautions required during installation of a PV system (Ame rican Technical Publishers, 2007). In most cases, local and state cont racting laws and regulations require an electrical contractor to be licensed in order to apply for permits and perform electrical work, including work on PV systems (Ameri can Technical Publishers, 2007). A few 25

PAGE 26

states, including Florida, California, and Nevada, have a solar contractor license classification that includes PV system insta llations in their scope of work. However, these licenses are limited to performing onl y incidental work and require the solar contractor to hire an electrical subcontractor to install any pr emise wiring or make connections to the utility grid. Proper safety precautions must be taken during all aspects of PV-system installation. These tasks can expose personnel to electrical, chemical, explosion, fire, exposure, and ergonomic hazards. Certain sa fety gear, such as special tools and equipment, fall protection, and PPE, may be required depending on the system to be installed (American Technical Publishe rs, 2007). Proper working space should be reserved around the electrical equipment so that workers can safely and efficiently install and inspect the equipment. The process of installing a roof-mounted photovoltaic system begins with the solar contractor installing aluminum L-brackets to the roof struct ure. The aluminum L-brackets are secured to the roof by scr ewing them into the roof rafte rs. A polyurethane sealant is applied in the roof penetration right before the L-brackets are screwed in to prevent water from leaking to the interior of the roof. The next step in volves installing the aluminum rails for which the PV panels will be mounted on. These rails are bolted directly to the roof mounted aluminum L-br ackets with stainless steel bolts. After the aluminum mounting rails are installed, the PV panels are then lifted to the roof and carefully set on the mounting rails. Once the PV panels are cent ered correctly on the rails, they are secured to the mounting ra ils with hold-down clamps. These components are shown in Figure 2-14. 26

PAGE 27

The next phase involves installation of t he PV combiner, inverter, main service panel, and system wiring. The combiner box stri ngs the series of wires from all the PV panels into one main wire that will run to the in verter, i.e., the combiner box acts as a multiple lane highway that converges into one lane. The inverter is the next part of installation and serves to covert DC power generated from the PV panels into AC power. The main service panel is the last component of the system to be installed before system wiring is run. Pr oper wiring of the system occurs in the following order: PV panels to the combiner box; combiner box to the inverter; inverter to the main service panel; main service panel to the utility grid and building. Installation of a PV system involves an electr ician and either a solar contractor or a roofing contractor. If a roofing contractor installs the PV system, they are legally bound to only make roof penetrations and PV attachment s to the roof. The roofing contractor is considered out of their scope of work if they perform any system wiring. A solar contractor can make roof penetrations, a ttach the PV system components, and run only the DC system wiring to the inverter. The sola r contractor is considered out of their scope of work if they run the AC power from the inverter to the main service panel. The electrician can install the ent ire PV system wiring and is the only party that can install the AC wiring. The Job Safety Analysis (JSA) report associated with constructing a photovoltaic system can be found in Appendix G. Warm-Mix Asphalt The heating of asphalt during roofing and r oad-building applications results in the release of more than 50 organic compounds to which 350,000 construction workers are routinely exposed (Cervarich, 2009). Over the past two decades, the asphalt pavement industry has been working with NIOSH, ot her government agencies, and unions to 27

PAGE 28

improve working conditions at the paving site, including reduc ing workers exposure to asphalt fumes (Harte, 2009). In the late 1990s, an agreement was made to put controls on all U.S. manufactured highway-class paver s to vent fumes away from workers. Although this effort contributed tremendously to keeping fumes away from workers, the industry felt as though it still was not good enough. The ultimate goal was to minimize or eliminate the fumes at their source. The composition of asphalt pavement ma terial includes asphalt cement, a petroleum product, and an aggregate mix of stone, sand, and gravel. Studies have shown that the temperature of the asphalt cement is proportional to the amount of fumes it produces; therefore, higher asphalt cem ent temperatures yield higher levels of fumes. To improve paving safety, the task was to produce the asphalt pavement material at lower temperatures to minimize the associated fumes. In 2002, the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) sponsored research at the National Center for Asphalt Technology to explore the opportunities of warm-mix asphalt. The first warm-mix technology in t he U.S. came about in 2004, and since then, technology innovators have introduced approx imately 15 new, warm-mix technologies. Warm-mix asphalt is a term us ed for different technologies that allow the producers of hot-mix asphalt pavement material to lower t he temperatures for its production at the construction stage. Conventional hot-mix asphalt is produced at 280o to 320o F, whereas warm-mix technologies allow product ion temperatures to be reduced to approximately 215o to 275o F. In addition, the warm-mix asphalt is cooled by another 10o to 20o F during the time it is transported to the paving site (Cervarich, 2009). 28

PAGE 29

Warm-mix technologies bring many benefit s to the asphalt pavement industry. The more common benefits include improved work ing conditions, a reduction in overall fume emissions, and increased fuel savings Through further research, additional benefits have been discovered for these technolog ies. These mixes were found to have the potential to extend paving time in cold climates, improve over all pavement quality, and lengthen the lifespan of t he pavement. The asphalt indus try is considered the number one recycler in the U.S. with over 100 m illion tons of asphalt pavement being reclaimed each year. Nearly 95 percent of this material is reused or recycled each year (Cervarich, 2009). Since the temperatures of warm-mix asphalt are significantly reduced when it reaches the paving site, workers experience a more comfortable work area because the paving site is cooler. Also, the fumes and any odor associated with the asphalt paving are virtually gone. Workability of the wa rm-mix has been reported to be less labor intensive and easier to compact. The introduction of warm-mix asphalt technologies into the U.S. paving industry was an important step in sustainable development. The implementation of these technologies has brought economic, performance, and environmental benefits. Most importantly, ther e is a reduced impact on worker health and safety. Green Building Design and Construction Through the design, construction, and fi nal operation of a green building, the main concern for human safety and health is for the end-user. While the end-users safety is important, so too is the safety of the worker constructing the building. The issue, which is not addressed in the LEED process, is whether or not construction worker safety and human health are im pacted through the implementation of 29

PAGE 30

sustainable concepts in the building developm ent process. A pilot study was conducted to determine the relationship between green building practices and construction worker safety and health. The study focused on a pr oject that was to receive LEED Gold certification. The data collect ed came from project documentation and interviews which included representatives from the general contracting and subcontracting firms working on the college campus project. Two main questions were asked of the participants regar ding green building construction and the safety of the construc tion workers. The first question was if a safety concern was identified, and if so, was the impact considered positive or negative. The positive impact responses were good housekeeping, low VO C materials, and painting location and timing relative to the location of other workers. The negative impacts included increased material handling, extra dumpsters for ma terial separation, and the design of the atrium. Th e intent of the atrium de sign was to increase natural light for the interior of the building, but th is design resulted in more scaffolding which increased worker exposure to potential injury. The second question was how safety on the green building site compared to a conventional building site. The question was par t of a survey and included twenty-four participants. Of those interviewed, twelve felt that green building site s were a little safer, seven stated that they were much safer, and five reported that they were the same as conventional building sites (Rajendran, 2006). The construction industrys current view on sustainability is based on the principles of resource efficiency and the health and productivity of the buildings occupants. However, if a building is labeled as sustainable, it should be sustainable 30

PAGE 31

across its entire lifecycle, including c onstruction and design. Rajendran conducted a second and more extensive study to determi ne the impacts of green building design and construction on the safety and health of cons truction workers. The focus of the study was to analyze the safety and health performance of 38 green and 48 non-green construction projects to determine if any differences exist between the two. Safety and health performance data were based on the OSHA recordable and lost time injury/illness rates experienced on the proj ects. Identification of a green and non-green project was based upon whether or not the project was pursu ing LEED certification. There were a total of seven construction firms that provided data from their previous and current projec ts. The data received from the seven firms included 86 building projects. The approach for obtaining the data from the firms consisted of requesting information on proj ect demographics, safety performance, and LEED. Project demographics include d project type, cost, size, and location. Safety performance information included total pr oject man-hours, the number of OSHA recordable injuries and the number of lost time injuries/illnesses on the project (Rajendran, 2006). Information solicited for LEED included the type of certification being sought, the level of certification, the number of points, and if the project was certified or registered. The research concluded that there appeared to be little to no difference between the green and non-green projects in terms of construction safety and health. The safety performance of green and non-green buildings were the same which raises the question as to whether LEED buildings shou ld be labeled as sustainable buildings. It 31

PAGE 32

was concluded that LEED projects are envir onmentally sustainable but not sustainable in terms of worker safety and health (Rajendran, 2006) 32

PAGE 33

Figure 2-1. Types of ICF system s (BuildCentral, Inc. 2010) Figure 2-2. Perimeter bracing on foundation for ICF form (Miller, 2005) 33

PAGE 34

Figure 2-3. ICF wall bracing (Miller, 2005) Figure 2-4. Window blocked in with pressure-treated lumber 34

PAGE 35

Figure 2-5. Corner CMU units without mortar (Simmons, 2007) Figure 2-6. Corner CMU units (Simmons, 2007) 35

PAGE 36

Figure 2-7. EPDM single-ply roof system detail (Spence, 1998) Figure 2-8. Mechanically fastened singleply roof system detail (Spence, 1998) 36

PAGE 37

Figure 2-9. Built-up roof detail (Spence, 1998) Figure 2-10. Torch-down technique 37

PAGE 38

Figure 2-11. Typical modified bitum en roof system detail (Spence, 1998) Figure 2-12. Green roof system (American Wick Drain Corp.) 38

PAGE 39

Figure 2-13. Components of a PV array ( http://www.schl.ca/en/co/maho/enefcosa /enefcosa_003.cfm?renderforprint=1 ) Figure 2-14. Photovoltaic mounting detail 39

PAGE 40

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY This study was designed to examine the sa fety hazards associated with selected sustainable building component construction and whether it has a negative or positive impact on worker safety. The sustainable building components analyzed for this research were insulated concrete form (ICF), green roof, photovoltaic system, and nonpetroleum-based roofing. The Table 3-1 is not the result of research but a collaborative effort in which safety assessments we re made of different building elements encountered in green buildings. Table 3-1 includes 31 design elements which are organized in different categories to show what function the element serves. The categories are air, ecology, energy, toxins, wa ste, water, and worker productivity. These categories represent the characteristic function of the design element, e.g., highefficiency air filters are in the air categor y because the function of the element is to purify air. The next column, entitled New Activities ? provides an assessment of whether the design element entails new activities or if the activities are essentially the same for the element being replaced or substituted. The design elements were noted with either an N for no or a Y for yes, referring to w hether or not they were a new construction activity. For example, the use of low energy lights does not introduce a new activity as the same procedures would be used to install the low energy lights or the conventional lights. It was noted that most design element s in Table 3-1 consist of substantially newer, more energy-efficient elements for the older or conv entional elements. The last column represents the impact on safety of constructing the design elements. The elements were marked with either a +, indicating a positive impact, a 40

PAGE 41

indicating a negative impact, or a indicati ng no impact on safety. Of the 31 elements, eleven were identified as not impacting cons truction safety, ten were identified as favorably impacting construction safety, and t en were identified as adversely impacting safety. Of the 31 green design elements, five were identified as being new construction activities. These were photovoltaic, wind energy generators, non-petroleum-based roofing, insulated concrete form (ICF), and green roof. These five design elements were of primary interest in this research. The research objective was to examine the green design elements that entitled ne w activities to more fully assess the implications on safety and how these issues could be properly addressed. Table 3-1. Green Elements and Safety (Hinze and Gambatese, unpublished) Construction Green Design Element Category New Activities? Impact on Safety High-efficiency air filters Air N 0 Air monitors Air N + Use of indigenous plants Ecology N + Photovoltaic Energy Y Solar collectors Energy N High-efficiency HVAC Energy N 0 Shading Energy N 0 Zoned air conditioning Energy N 0 Low energy lights Energy N 0 Timed lighting systems Energy N 0 Wind energy generators Energy Y Insulated curtains Energy N 0 Reflective surfaces for roofing and walls Energy N High-efficiency windows Energy N 0 Use of fly ash in concrete Energy N + Low cement content materials Energy N + Use of local materials Energy N + 41

PAGE 42

Table 3-1. Continued. Construction Green Design Element Category New Activities? Impact on Safety Geothermal heating system Energy N Non-toxic materials (e.g., paints, caulking, sealants, adhesives) Toxins N + Non-petroleum-based roofing Toxins Y + Use of recycled materials Waste N Material reuse Waste N Use of renewable materials Waste N 0 ICF Waste Y + Reuse/recycling of waste products Waste N Cut-to-order purchasing Waste N + Green roof Water Y + Low water use fixtures Water N 0 Greywater use Water N Rainwater collection Water N Daylighting Worker productivity N 0 Upon closer review of the five green desi gn elements that entitled new activities, it was decided not to examine the safety or health impacts associated with wind energy generators. Wind energy generators were excluded from this research because they are not actual components of buildings but rather separate electrical ge nerating units, i.e., there is no parallel convent ional component for comparison of safety and health impacts. In addition, the scope of projects to erect wind ener gy generators is enormous. Wind energy generator installations consist of site development, trenching for utility lines, constructing substantial foundations erecting the support towers with the generators, attaching the propellers, addressi ng power distribution, and other major activities. This is a topic for a sole focus for research. Experts familiar with constructing ICFs, gr een roofs, photovoltaic systems, and non-petroleum-based roofing were interviewed fo r data collection. A total of 11 experts were interviewed three expe rts for ICFs, three experts fo r green roofs, three experts 42

PAGE 43

for photovoltaic systems, and two experts fo r non-petroleum-based roofing. Only two experts were interviewed for non-petrol eum-based roofing because there was no difference in these observations and opinions. It did not appear worthwhile to conduct a third expert interview. The experts were chosen on the basis of their knowledge and experience with the components and the associated construction proc ess. The representatives were from large firms in niche areas and were select ed in two ways: through the use of a webbased search engine and contacts with profe ssionals personally known by the author. The goal of the interviews was to gather information on the following: 1) the safety hazards associated with constructing the sustainable building component, and 2) the safety hazards associated with constructi ng the conventional bu ilding component. The intent of this study was to determine if constructing sustainable building components has a positive or negative impact on worker safety. The methodology was as follows: 1. Researched companies that specialize in ICF, green roof, photovoltaic system, and non-petroleum-based roofing construction and installation 2. Developed questions for interviews 3. Contacted representatives of companies to arrange interviews 4. Conducted in-person a nd telephone interviews 5. Organized information gathered from interviews to establish results 43

PAGE 44

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The results of this study ar e presented below in four se ctions. The sections include the overview of the component and the expert interview results. 1. Insulated Concrete Form 2. Green roof 3. Photovoltaic system 4. Non-petroleum-based roofing Insulated Concrete Form (ICF) Expert Interview One The health and safety concerns associat ed with constructing an ICF wall were identified by three expert interview partici pants and will be described. The first safety issue identified by the interviewee involved the amount of time that workers are on the scaffolding, which is required to construct an ICF wall. With regards to the time that workers are on scaffolding, the process of constructing a CMU block wall takes longer than constructing an ICF wall. With an ICF wall, the blocks are much larger than a CMU block so more wall area can be constructed in a shorter amount of time. The amount of time workers are on scaffolding, which is requir ed to build the wall, is in reference to the total time, e.g., two w eeks. It is not referring to the daily amount of time workers are on the scaffolding since it would be the same for both a conventional CMU block wall and an ICF wall. The safety hazard associated with workers being on scaffolding is the risk of falling. Less time on scaffolding means ther e is a reduced risk of a worker falling. The next safety concern discussed was falling objects during wall construction. The objects of concern pertain to CMU blocks and ICF blocks. CMU blocks are very heavy and if one happens to fall from the scaffold ing or during placement on the wall, it can cause serious injury to workers below. In addition, the relatively sharp corners of a 44

PAGE 45

CMU block could contribute additional injury if a worker was struck by one falling. The potential risk of injury caused by a falling ICF block is significantly reduced because the blocks consist of foam insulation and weigh much less than a CMU block. The next safety concern identified was in regards to pouring concrete columns in a CMU block wall. For a conventional CMU bl ock wall, a column must be poured every 48 inches for structural integrity. During this pr ocess, concrete and insulation is poured into the CMU blocks cavities to form a solid vertic al column. The insulation consists of either vermiculite or perlite and when it is poured or blown in with the concrete it generates dust. This poses a health hazard to worker s because of the risk of inhaling the dust particles. This health hazard is not asso ciated with constructi ng an ICF wall because vermiculite or perlite is not used. The last safety hazard identified by the interviewee dealt with the use of powder actuated devices. After a CMU block wall is cons tructed, furrings have to be installed on the wall interior so that drywall can then be attached. Attaching the furrings to the CMU wall requires the use of a pow der-actuated device. A worker then becomes at risk to the hazards associated with the use of this device. With an ICF wall system, powderactuated devices are not used which eliminates the associated risks. Expert Interview Two One of the primary safety c oncerns identified by the interviewee was in regards to the weight of the CMU blocks and the risk of in jury to a worker if one falls from a high elevation during conventional CMU block wall construction. The potential for a CMU block falling is during the process of a work er placing the block on the wall, during the process of hoisting ad ditional blocks up to the scaffolding, or when a worker is simply rearranging or organizing the stockpile of CMU blocks on the scaffolding. The CMU 45

PAGE 46

blocks are very heavy objects and if one happens to fall and strike a worker below, serious injury can result. The Styrofoam blocks used for ICF wall construction are much lighter than CMU blocks and the potential for injury from a panel falling from a high elevation is significantly reduced. Another safety concern discussed was ergonom ic issues. Workers are at a higher risk of straining muscles when lifting CM U blocks because they are heavy objects. Since ICF blocks are much lighter, the risk of a worker sustaining a back injury or muscle strain is reduced significantly. Additional safety concerns identified by the interviewee included the use of tools and material characteristics. Both IC F wall construction and CMU block wall construction require the use of power tool s. When constructing th e wall with either component, certain parts or sections of the wall will require a modified piece, such as a corner or window opening. The power tools used to cut an ICF block to a specific size include a chain saw or a heat gun and the power tools used to cut a CMU block include a concrete saw. In addition, holes have to be drilled for electrical and plumbing work and require the use of a drill. The safety haz ards associated with t he use of these power tools are relatively the same with regards to cutting and drilling an ICF block or a CMU block. The issue of concern is the dust gener ated from cutting or drilling a CMU block. Cutting and drilling a CMU block generates a significant amount of dust whereas cutting or drilling an ICF block does not. The health hazard associated is the potential risk of a worker inhaling the dust particles generated. The safety concern associated with material characteristics is the texture of a CMU block. A CMU block has a rough texture and relatively sharp corners which c an cause skin abrasions if rubbed against. 46

PAGE 47

However, because an ICF block is composed of Styrofoam the chance of a worker sustaining a cut or abrasion to the skin is unlikely. The last safety concern identified was in regards to duration of constructing an ICF wall. The process of constructing an ICF wall typically takes 20-30% less time than constructing a conventional CMU block wall sim ilar in size which results in an overall diminished exposure to the safety hazards associated. Expert Interview Three The first safety concern that the interview ee identified was in regards to the weight difference between an ICF block and a CMU block. An ICF block is much lighter than a CMU block and is composed of foam like mate rial. With an ICF block, workers are at minimal risk of sustaining injuries from li fting them, injuries from being struck by one falling from scaffolding or any other high elevation, and injuries from abrupt skin contact. Constant lifting of CMU blocks throughout the day can put serious strain on a workers body, especially the back, which can result in muscle strains and back complications. Since a CMU block is made of concrete and has a rough texture, work ers are at risk of sustaining cuts, scrapes, and bruises when they are being handled. The next safety concern identified was the hazards associated with the tools used to cut an ICF block and a CMU block. The to ol used to cut an ICF block is a hand saw, similar to a drywall saw, and the tool used to cut a CMU block is a powered concrete saw. A worker using a hand saw to cut an ICF block is at a much le ss risk of sustaining a bodily injury compared to a worker using a powered concrete saw to cut a CMU block because the powered concrete saw has a hi gh-speed spinning blade. The high speed spinning blade has the potential to cause se vere bodily injuries whereas the hand saw only poses minimal threat. Workers are also exposed to dust particles and concrete 47

PAGE 48

fragments projected from the spinning blade while cutting. This puts a worker at risk of inhaling the dust particles and sustaining an ey e injury from the projected fragments. Green Roof Expert Interview One The health and safety concerns associ ated with constructing a green roof were identified by three expert interview participants and will be discussed below. The interviewee stated that the typical safe ty hazards associated with constructing a conventional roof were also present duri ng green roof constructi on. Three distinct elements were identified that we re directly related to green roof construction and safety. These elements are as follows: the constructi on of a parapet wall, the use of low-VOC materials, and the elimination of asphalt use. The participant stated that the green roofs that they construct integrate a parapet wall in to the design. The parapet wall is designed to be 39 inches high to meet OSHA requirem ents for fall protection so workers do not have to tie-off. By having the parapet wall as part of the green roof structure, workers can construct the green roof without additi onal fall protection. This provides a barricaded area for the workers and reduces the risk of falling. The second element was the use of low-VOC materials. The natural root barrier in a green roof is a specific membrane layer applied on top of the insulation board. The root barrier is a PVC or thermoplastic (TPO) membrane which has low-VOC content. The use of this type of membrane reduces worker exposure to VOCs. Conventional roofing membrane materials typically have high-VOC content, resulting in continuous worker exposure throughout the work day. The third element identified was the us e of PVC or thermoplastic materials instead of asphalt. Workers are at risk of burn injuries when working with asphalt 48

PAGE 49

because it must be heated to high temperatur es for application. Workers are also exposed to the fumes associated with hot asphalt. Inhaling these fumes for extended periods jeopardizes the health of the workers. With the PVC or thermoplastic membrane used for a green roof, the safety and health hazards associated with asphalt are eliminated because it is at ambient tem perature and does not expel any fumes. Expert Interview Two The interviewee identified that the root barrier installed for the green roof is commonly a 30 mil polyethylene membrane and that the material does not off-gas because it is a low-VOC material. The mate rial does not pose any safety hazards to workers but the process of installing t he membrane does. Once the root barrier membrane is laid down on the roof structure the seams ar e welded together with a hot air gun. The safety hazard associated with the use of a hot air gun is risk for a burn injury. Exposure to a fire hazard is minima l with construction of a green roof because no tools or equipment with an open flame is used. With a conventional built-up or modified bitumen roof system, the use of torches is a common practice. The next safety hazard identified by the interviewee is in regards to crane logistics. The media, plants, and trees that are hoisted to the r oof are somewhat abnormal objects to rig and lift and can pose a challenge to the crane operator and the workers rigging the materials. Since the mate rials are different than conventional roofing materials, the risk of one of these objects falling caused by the rigging malfunctioning is increased; however the risk is dependent on how well the workers rig the materials. Although the risks associated with hoisting mate rials to the roof are present with any type of roofing system, the condi tions are slightly different with green roof materials. An 49

PAGE 50

example identified was the bags of media lifted to the roof are heavy and have the potential to rip open. Another safety hazard identified dealt with residential green r oof construction. The green roof materials are brought up to t he roof by hand using a ladder because the most residential roofs are not high enough to require lifting equipment. This technique could cause the worker to fall off the l adder from having undistributed weight, uneven balance, or reduced contact points and cause se rious injury. However, the interviewee stated that this unsafe practice is also performed with tradition al residential roof construction and the same safety hazards and risk of injuries are present. The interviewee described that green r oof construction is probably safer than conventional roof construction because of the fact that green roofs are relatively new and that this brings an additional amount of attention to the technology. With it being a newer technology, workers pay extra attention while working to make them more aware of the safety hazards present. Expert Interview Three The interviewee stated that the ty pical safety hazards associated with conventional roof construction are also pres ent with green roof cons truction, which was fall hazards, heat exhaustion, and tripping ha zards. The interviewee stated that the material used for the root barrier of a green roof is a low-density polyethylene membrane (LDPM) and does not de-gas or gener ate fumes that would pose a health hazard to workers because of its low-VOC content. The LPDM also does not require a torch for application so workers are not exposed to a fire hazard and at risk for sustaining a burn injury. This is the ca se, however, with conventional built-up or modified bitumen roof construction because some of the materials used require a torch 50

PAGE 51

to be applied. Workers are also exposed to the hazards associated with hot asphalt. Roofing asphalt is heated to te mperatures that would cause serious burn injuries if a worker was to come in contact with it. The roofing asphalt also generates toxic fumes that can be inhaled by workers in close prox imity. The plants, trees, shrubs, and media used for a green roof, which are parallel materi als to a conventional roof, are safe to with and around and do not pose any significant health or safety hazards to workers. The next issue was in regards to the dur ation of constructing a green roof relative to constructing a conventional roof and the exposure to fall hazards. The interviewee stated that the process of constructi ng a green roof is co mmonly faster than constructing a conventional r oofing system. This means that less time is spent on the roof and reduces the risk of a work er falling from high elevations. The interviewee identified an issue rela ted to worker safety which did not specifically involve materials, equipment, or practices. The issue was in regards to the experience of a roofing company. A roofing company that previously specialized in constructing conventional roof systems that en ters into green roof construction will have a good understanding and background of the general safety hazards associated with roof construction. However, a company that is brand new to roof construction that enters the market specializing in green roof construction is subjected to a learning curve in which the workers could be at higher ri sk to the safety hazards. This does not constitute that any of the workers are nec essarily safer than the other and was just an opinion of the interviewee. 51

PAGE 52

Photovoltaic System Expert Interview One The health and safety concerns associat ed with installing a photovoltaic system were identified by three expert interview participants and will be discussed below. The participant for this interview was a general operation manager for a solar contractor located in Gainesville, Florida and has over twenty years of experience in the solar industry. The interview lasted around 15 mi nutes and was conducted via telephone. Issues discussed during the interview pertai ned to the safety hazards associated with installation of a photovoltaic system. The first safety issue identified by the participant was fall hazards. Installing the PV system components on a sloped roof puts workers at risk of falling; some type of fall protection is required. Other fall hazards are also present during the installation of a PV system, primarily related to tripping hazards. The hazard of electrical shock is also a real concern. Installation of a PV system re quires a large amount of wiring to connect the modules. Most of the wires cannot be s een since they are integrated into the PV panels; however, there are some that are elevated a few inc hes off the roof which run from one set of modules to another. These wires pose a tripping hazard to workers as they walk around the modules and they could al so pose an electrical hazard. Once the PV modules are installed they immediately produce DC current and if workers come in contact with loose wires they could get shock ed. A worker who experiences an electrical shock may also be at risk of fa lling off the roof. That is, a wo rker who is startled by an electrical shock could end up falling off the roof. Another safety concern that was discu ssed during the interview involved the process of getting the PV panels from the ground to the roof. The interviewee stated 52

PAGE 53

that the way the PV panels get up on the roof is either by handing the panels up to someone on the roof or by using a hoist ing mechanism to pull them up, depending on the roof height. This procedure puts workers at risk of injury from falling objects and improper lifting techniques. Expert Interview Two The participant for this interview was an installation manager for a solar contractor in Gainesville, Florida and had two years of experience in the solar industry. The participant is a certified licensed general contractor and a certified project manager. The interview with this participant last ed around 30 minutes and was conducted inperson at one of the companys current pr ojects. The project was a 750,000 watt photovoltaic system installation on the roofs of an apartment comple x in Gainesville, Florida. The interview allowed this resear cher to see firsthand the safety hazards associated with a PV system installation and to obtain additional information about PV systems. The first safety hazard identified by the interviewee was electrical shock hazard. Once a panel is set and wires are connected, DC current is being generated and any loose wires that a worker contacts result in an electrical shock. The interviewee stated that he had personally been shocked from a l oose wire while working on the system, so the exposure to shock hazard is always present during installation. The next safety hazard identified was heat exhaustion during the summer. When working on a roof during summer days in Florida, workers are exposed to heat exhaustion and dehydration. Be tween the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. workers are subjected to extremely high temperatures and the risk of heat exhaustion becomes significantly increased. The participant stated that during the summer the workers begin 53

PAGE 54

work on the roof around 8:00 a.m. and finish around 1:00 p.m. to av oid any heat-related injuries. During the rest of the year, however the risk of heat exh austion is diminished. Another safety hazard discussed was tr ipping hazards from the PV system wiring. The participant stated that the electrician that does most of their electrical work usually has quality workmanship which result s in minimal wiring that could cause a worker to trip. However, some of the electrical work on the project that was examined during the interview revealed wires that incr eased the risk of a tr ip hazard. Although the workmanship of the electrical contractor does affect the exposure of workers to tripping over wires, the presence of a trip hazard will always exis t. In addition to the PV system wiring posing a trip hazard are the rails t hat are used to secure the PV modules. The rails protrude about four to six inches wh ich puts a worker at risk of tripping. Expert Interview Three The first safety concern that the interv iewee identified relat ed to the weight and size of the photovoltaic panels. The panels are 33 inches by 66 inches and weigh approximately 40 to 50 pounds each. Handling these panels is cause for concern for concern for a couple of reasons. The first reason being that at 40 to 50 pounds, lifting these panels can cause back and other muscle st rains. In addition, if a panel is dropped from the roof to the ground and strikes a worker, they can sustain serious injury such as broken bones and contusions. The second reason is issues created by the large size of the panels. Workers installing the large panels have to contort themselves to get the panels into position on the roof racks which c ould place the worker in an unsafe position on the roof. Another issue with the size of the panels is the potential for the panel catching the wind while being moved and throwin g the worker off balance. This could cause the worker to fall over onto other objects or push th em off the roof. 54

PAGE 55

The next safety concern indentified by the interviewee was the potential for electrical shock. When workers are installing the panels, they are constantly exposed to a shock hazard because the panels are unable to be turned on or off to prevent them from generating current. Each panel generat es 48 volts of DC current and once inverted, they generate 120 volts of AC cu rrent. The more panels that are connected together will increase the amount of voltage running through the wiring. This elevates the severity of a potential injury occurring from a worker coming in contact with a live wire. The interviewee stated that for the topic of photovolta ic installation, the main safety concern is fall hazards, especially on sloped roofs. However, anytime someone is working on any type of roofing system, the th reat of falling is always present. These hazards can be lessened by the installers using proper fall protection safeguards. Non-Petroleum-Based Roofing The health and safety concerns asso ciated with constructing a non-petroleumbased roofing system were ident ified by two expert interview participants and will be discussed below. There were two telephone interviews conducted for this building component. Both of the interview participants were representatives from large roofing companies that specialize in single-ply, built-up, and modified bitumen roofing systems. The safety concerns identified by the inte rviewees that were associated with nonpetroleum-based roofing were al most identical, so the info rmation obtained from the two interviews was combined to represent one analysis. The interview participants were asked w hat roofing system they use that contain non-petroleum-based materials in which they identified as being a single ply system. The single-ply roof consists of either a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or thermoplastic 55

PAGE 56

polyolefin (TPO) membrane, which are both non-petroleum-based. Th e membrane itself does not pose any health or safety hazards to workers that install it. However, certain adhesives that are used to secure the memb rane to the solid under layment do off-gas, which puts workers at risk of inhaling the fumes. These adhesives are available as either a water-based adhesive, which does not off-gas, or solvent-based adhesive, which does off-gas and is the more popular type used. The next safety concern identified was ex posure to fire hazards with regards to a conventional built-up or modified bitumen ro of. Both of these roofing systems require the use of a torch for applicati on of their respective waterp roofing material. Workers in the vicinity of the torch are at risk for burn injuries which can occur from an explosion, direct contact with the torch, or materials t hat catch on fire. With a single-ply roof, the degree to which workers are exposed to fire hazards is significantly less. This is because installation of a single-ply roofing system does not require a torch to apply the waterproofing membrane. It does however require the use of a heat gun to weld together the seams of the membrane. T he heat gun does not create an open flame as does a torch which reduces the risk of a worker sustaining a burn injury. Another safety concern identified was in regards to the use of hot asphalt in a conventional built-up system. The roofing as phalt is at extremely high temperatures when applied and can cause serious burn injuries to workers that come in contact with it. Workers are also exposed to the toxic fu mes that the roofing asphalt emits. Hot roofing asphalt is not used in single-ply roofing systems. The last safety concern stated by the inte rviewees was in regards to exposure to fall hazards. Workers are always exposed to fall hazards during construction of a 56

PAGE 57

roofing system, so the longer the process takes will result in an increased risk of someone falling. The process of construc ting a single-ply roofing system takes, on average, 20% to 30% less time than does a conventional built-up or modified bitumen roofing system, which results in less time workers spend on the roof and ultimately reduces the exposure to fall hazards. 57

PAGE 58

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions As analyzed in Chapter 4, it was determined from the expert interviews whether the impact on worker safety with regards to constructing ICFs green roofs, photovoltaic systems, and non-petroleum-based roofing was either negative or positive. ICF The safety hazards that were identifi ed through the interviews suggest that the health and safety of workers is positively impacted with regards to ICF construction. With conventional CMU block wall construction, workers are at potential higher risk of sustaining injuries mainly because of t he weight difference between a CMU block and an ICF block. The CMU block compared to an ICF block would cause a much more serious injury if one was to fall and strike a worker below because a CMU block is much heavier. In addition, the rough texture and ex tremely hard composition of a CMU block could cause cuts and bruises from a wo rker scraping or rubbing against one. Another assumption as to why there is a positive correlation between worker safety and ICF construction is the reduced expo sure to silica dust. Cutting, grinding, and drilling CMU blocks produces dust particles that could pose a resp iratory threat if inhaled by a worker. With an ICF block, however, no dust particles are produced from cutting or drilling so the threat of inhaling th e harmful dust particles is eliminated. The next issue that suggests that cons tructing ICF walls has a positive impact on worker health and safety is in regards to t he insulation that is added to the concrete in CMU block wall construction. The vermiculite or perlite insulation that is sometimes added to the concrete for a CM U block wall generates dust parti cles that put workers at 58

PAGE 59

potential risk of inhaling. With an ICF wall, insulation is not added to the concrete which eliminates worker exposure to the dust particles generated from vermiculite or perlite used for a CMU block wall. Another positive aspect of ICF wall is that it takes less time to construct than a conventional CMU block wall. This results in less man-hours and reduced worker exposure to the safety and health hazards associated with constructing the ICF wall. One issue that did not necessarily suggest that ICF construction has a positive impact on worker safety was in regards to the tools used. The pr imary tools targeted with regards to worker safety were tools that are used to cut the CMU blocks and the ICF blocks. The primary tool used to cut a CMU block is a concrete saw and the tools used to cut an ICF block were identified as ei ther a hand saw or a chain saw. The safety hazards associated with using a concrete saw or a chain saw pose similar risks to injuries, which can be significant. The use of a hand saw has a significantly reduced risk for potential injury. This suggests that this aspect of ICF construction is not necessarily safer than conventional CMU construction because a hand saw is not always used to cut the ICF blocks. Green Roof The safety hazards that were identifi ed through the interviews suggest that the health and safety of workers is positive ly impacted with regards to green roof construction. The first issue that supports that green roof construction is safer than conventional roof construction is in regards to the roofing materials used. The root barrier used in a green roof system is a PVC or thermoplastic membrane, which has low-VOC content, and the materials used in a conventional roofing system contain highVOC content. Since materials with high-VO C content off gas, workers are at an 59

PAGE 60

increased risk of inhaling toxic fumes during construction of a conventional roof. Another suggesting issue is the fact that asphalt is not used in green roof construction. Hot roofing asphalt used in conventional roofing not only off gases, but is at very high temperatures during applicati on. Workers in the vicinity of the hot asphalt are at potential risk for sustaining a burn injury. The next positive aspect of green roof c onstruction is that a torch is not used to install any of the roofing materials. With built-up and modified bitumen roofing systems, a torch is used for material application. By eliminating the use of a torch, workers are removed from the exposure to a fire hazard. Additional safety hazards that were identified fo r green roof construction and conventional roof construction were very si milar. These cannot be used as evidence to suggest that green roof construction has a positive impact on worker safety. For example, workers are exposed to the same safety hazards associated with lifting either green roof or conventional roof materials to the roof using a crane. Workers are also exposed to relatively the same fall hazards with regards to green roof construction and conventional built-up or modifi ed bitumen roof construction. Photovoltaic System The safety hazards that were identified in the interviews suggest that photovoltaic system installation has a negative impact on work er safety. This is because workers are at constant exposure to shock hazards duri ng installation. Once the photovoltaic panels are mounted on the roof and sunli ght is present, electrical current is being produced in which workers are at potential risk of getting shocked. Another negative impact on worker safety was in regards to the weight and shape of the PV panels. The PV panels we igh around 40-50 pounds and can cause 60

PAGE 61

back injuries and/or muscle strains when being li fted. In addition, serious injury, such as broken bones and contusions, can occur if a PV panel is dropped onto a worker. The large shape of the PV panel poses the threat of a worker being pushed off balance from the panel catching wind while bei ng moved. This could cause t he worker to fall down on the roof or fall off the roof, sust aining a serious or fatal injury. The last main safety hazard that was directly related to PV system installation that suggests a negative impact on worker safety is exposure to tripping hazards. Sections of the electrical wir ing that connect the sets of PV panels that are exposed are elevated just enough off the roof to cause a worker to tr ip when moving around. In addition to the electrical wiring being a tr ipping hazard is the railing that the PV panels are mounted to. The rails pr otrude about four to six in ches from the PV panels and could cause a worker to trip if they are wa lking too close. Since there is limited amount of workspace available on the roof when installing the PV panels, the potential for a worker tripping over electrical wires or the PV mounting rails is increased. Non-Petroleum-Based Roofing The information solicited from the inte rviews suggests that constructing nonpetroleum-based roofing has a positive impact on worker safety. Single-ply systems that use PVC or thermoplastic membrane materials were identified as being non-petroleumbased roofing systems. The PVC or thermoplastic membranes have a reduced impact on worker health and safety because they do not off gas and do not require extensive heating measures, such as an open-flame torch, for application to the solid underlayment. Workers are not exposed to toxi c inhalants and are not at risk to burn injuries from a torch. Wi th the conventional built-up and modified bitumen roofing systems, which are petroleum-based, the memb rane materials emit fumes and require a 61

PAGE 62

torch for application. Workers are at potentia l risk of inhaling the toxic fumes and are exposed to a fire hazard from the torch. S pecifically, with a built-up roof, the petroleumbased roofing material used is hot asphalt. Hot asphalt not only off gases, which exposes workers to a toxic in halant, but also is heated to temperatures high enough to cause severe burn injuries to workers if they come in contact with it. Future Research Recommendations This research has revealed primary safety concerns associated with constructing ICFs, green roofs, photovoltaic systems, an d non-petroleum-based roofing. In future research, the use of a survey along with the expert interviews is recommended to identify additional safety hazards associat ed with the selected sustainable building components. The use of a survey would expand the amount of data gathered with regards to safety hazards to make a more accurate assessment as to whether the selected sustainable building components have a negative or positive impact on worker safety. It is also recomm ended that safety representatives be selected as participants for future expert interviews since this study did not include any safety expert interviewees. 62

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX A ICF WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 64

64

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX B CMU WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 66

66

PAGE 67

67 APPENDIX C SINGLE-PLY WALL CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 68

68

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX D BUILT-UP ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 70

70

PAGE 71

71 APPENDIX E MODIFIED BITUMEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 72

72

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX F GREEN ROOF CONSTRUCTION JSA

PAGE 74

74

PAGE 75

75 APPENDIX G PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM INSTALLATION JSA

PAGE 76

76

PAGE 77

LIST OF REFERENCES American Technical Publishers, (2007). S ystem Components and Configurations. Photovoltaic Systems, 85-384. Cervarich, B. M., (2009). W arm-Mix Asphalt: Preventing Ex posure at Its Source. Prevention through Design: Gr een, Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Issue 5, 2-5. Gambatese, J., and Behm, M., (2009). Making Green Safe. Prevention through Design: Green, Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute fo r Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Issue 5, 8-9. Harte, A., (2009). Safe and Green Building Design. Prevention through Design: Green, Safe and Healthy jobs, National Institute for Occupat ional Safety and Health (NIOSH), Issue 5, 1-2. Miller, R., Miller, M. R., (2005). Alternative Types of Foundations. Millers Guide to Foundations and Sitework. 148-157. Simmons, L. H., (2007). Chapter 7: Thermal and Moisture Protection. Olins Construction: Principles Materials, and Methods.8th ed., 427-556. Spence, W. P., (1998). Concre te and Masonry: Part III. Construction Materials, Methods, and Techniques 120-311. Spence, W. P., (1998). Thermal and Mois ture Protection, Doors, Windows, and Finishes: Part V. Construction Materials, Methods, and Techniques, 620-694. Toolbase Services, (2001). "Res idential Green Roof Systems." Home Building Technical Information Resources Builder s Construction Remodeling Innovations Web. 07 May 2010. < http://www.toolbase.org/Build ing-Systems/Roofs/greenroofs >. Wark, C. and Wark, W., 2003, Green Roof Specifications and Standards. The Construction Specifier, Vol. 56, No. 8, September 2004, http://www.greenroofs.com/pdfs/Newl inks-803_construction_specifier.pdf 77

PAGE 78

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Brent Olson was born in Titusville, Fl orida. He graduated from Astronaut High School in 2003 and then attended Brevard Community College from 2003 until 2005 where he received his Associate of Arts degr ee. Brent then attended the University of Florida from 2005 until 2008 where he received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Food Science and Human Nutrition. He then began attending the M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction in 2008. Brent has work ed as an intern for W. W. Gay Mechanical Contractors and TIC The Industrial Company. Upon receiving his masters degree in building construction, Brent plans to begin his career in the industrial construction industry as an entry level field engi neer with TIC The Industrial Company. 78