Earth Day Blog Competition at The Hagerman Group - Winner Announced

This past Monday the 22nd of April marked our 43rd celebration ofEarth Day.  Every year at The Hagerman Group we remind ourselves of the importance of our environment with a friendly Earth Day competition.  This year we hosted a blog writing competition, and today we highlight our lucky winner Tony Suter.  Congratulations Tony!  Thanks for keeping the Earth Day spirit alive in our organization.

Be sure to check out the 24th annual Earth Day Indiana Festival April 27, 2013!

-Karen Schutte, Sustainability Coordinator

Earth Day 2013. It seems surreal to think about the environmental movements and discussions that have taken place in my half century on this planet. Growing up in the early 70’s, I was certain that all of our planets’ problems would surely be solved for my children and their children. After all, the environmental movement had a full head of steam out of the 50’s and 60’s with the “Keep America Beautiful” campaigns. And in 1970 it all exploded. It was the year of the major part of the Clean Air Act and the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency. This year would also see the beginning of the most successful Public Service Ad campaign in history with the start of the iconic “Crying Indian” television spots for anti-littering and anti-pollution. We were constantly being reminded that we had to take care of our planet.

The times had many causes and distractions with wars, civil rights debates and political scandals. I’m sure glad those days are over! Even with all the distractions though, we were always conscious that nothing went out the window of the car except the smoke from my dad’s cigarettes and on occasion, a brightly colored head scarf my mom would wear to protect her artfully styled updo from the 2/60 air conditioning. We just knew that littering was wrong and there was never any question.

As I travel the highways today, it seems the side ditches are fair game for anything anyone wants to throw out from paper cups to full size bags of garbage. Did we just fail to pass along all the heart wrenching lessons we learned from the Crying Indian? Or is it a bigger social shift of some kind? I know we never ate as many meals out back then as we do today. And as the mandated sanitation engineer of the household, I know we generated much less weekly trash when I was kid than we do today.

Obviously the priority has shifted to global warming and the loss of ozone. But I think we can keep our eye on the prize and keep our trash picked up at the same time. All it takes is a conscience and an occasional television reminder that it’s not okay to line our roads with 32 ounce Big Gulp cups and Red Bull cans. All it takes is a snappy catch phrase to keep a movement going.  After all, I may be a grouchy old man, but I give a hoot, I don’t pollute!

-Tony Suter, MEP Coordinator

The NFL and OSHA

The obligation of an employer to provide its employees with a safe workplace free from recognized hazards is well established. In the absence of specific standards for an industry, an employer is required under OSHA's general duty clause to provide its employees with a workplace free from recognized hazards which cause or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. The elements which are necessary to establish a violation of the general duty clause are: the failure to keep the workplace free of a hazard to which the employees are exposed; the hazard was recognized; the hazard was causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm; and there was a feasible and useful method to correct the hazard.

It is difficult to imagine a more violent workplace than the NFL. Among the injuries resulting from play are concussions. As the result of studies of High School and NFL players, the risks of neurodegenerative disease and the effects of concussions are now well documented. The NFL introduced a new rule concerning running backs and the use/position of their heads. Clearly, the risk/likelihood of concussions is recognized by the league and teams.

So, is it up to the league and the teams to address the concussion issue on their own or could OSHA become involved? In reviewing the elements of a general duty clause violation, the one element that seemed elusive is the feasible and useful method to correct the hazard, i.e. prevent and treat concussions. That may now have changed as the result of the new guidelines issued recently by the American Academy of Neurology. Athletes suspected of having a concussion are to be removed from play and not returned until after an assessment by a licensed health care professional trained in concussion. The new mantra is "when in doubt, sit it out." The new guidelines were developed by reviewing all the available evidence from 1955 through 2012 and are endorsed by a broad range of experts and groups including the NFL Players Association.

The treatment of players who have suffered or are suspected of suffering concussions going forward may no longer be a matter for just the league and teams. In the proper circumstances, OSHA may become involved if a player complains. If the NFL can ignore its obligations under the general duty clause, why can't other employers? No one wants concussions to become the black lung of football.

Insulation and the 2012 Energy Code

The 2012 Energy Code will bring tremendous change to the industry

By Steven Fechino
Codes: They can be confusing to keep up with as we manage our busy masonry operations. Many of us have heard that the 2012 Energy Code will bring tremendous change to the industry. However, the changes to the code actually are widespread to the building industry and are met with compliance, with many of the current systems and products we are installing daily.

The code does have many changes. For instance, entire heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems will require improvements to the mechanical systems and duct work. Window glazing and performance criteria are becoming more stringent, and the insulation requirements for the masonry industry have been written to higher performance levels. There are many rumors about how the changes will limit the available products with which we can build, once the code is adopted. This article will provide simple explanations to the code and provide some helpful insight to how the industry is dealing with the changes.

The code is a written model that will be adopted state by state, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. Therefore, the changes will not be across the board. To determine how the code will affect your operation, a visit to the Department of Energy’s website will provide you with additional information, www.energycodes.gov.

The energy code is important to all of us, because it is a positive step in the country’s reduction of energy consumption through design, construction and the operation of newer structures within our communities. The first step is important to react to the changes as soon as possible, since we all will be affected by the code sooner or later. Preparing now will make the transition easier.

The prescriptive energy code for the masonry industry is based, primarily, on the requirement for continuous insulation within the wall envelope. This becomes an issue when you look at the standard concrete masonry unit (CMU) and realize that the cross-webs allow for thermal bridging. By reducing the cross-web dimension, the efficiency of the unit is increased. However, this, by itself, is not the solution. With this in mind, it is now important to look at the criteria for compliance.

The thermal resistance (R Value, which indicated the ability of a wall system to resist heat transfer through the CMU wall) and the mass of a CMU wall can, in some cases, meet the code in the warmer climates. But this is not the standard case for most readers. Various types of insulation are used to develop the many single-wythe and cavity wall systems that we install. Rigid insulation, foam inserts, dry loose fill, injected foam, spray-on foam and proprietary block design round out the field increasing R values, typically from 5 to 25.

With the three methods available to determine code compliance, many of the current available masonry systems and designs will show acceptable numbers in at least one of the three criteria. Other important inherent factors of a CMU are the envelope’s design, specifications and materials that make up the assembly, as different manufactures of CMUs have similar, but different, mixes. This is one factor that can change the R value and the thermal mass performance of similar envelopes.

Other factors include geographical climate history, insulation specifications – either within the CMU or placed within the cavity – and the actual cross section of the CMU that comprises the wall design. See TEK 6-2B, R-Values and U-Factors (R-value = 1/U-factor) of Single Wythe Concrete Masonry Walls. The link will discuss thermal performance of a CMU wall and its thermal performance, based on material properties.

It is important to clear up the rumor that all masonry walls will require continuous insulation. There are many ways a designer can achieve compliance using complete building systems that will meet International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requirements.

At the present time, three methods for determining compliance exist: prescriptive, compliance software (performance) and whole building analysis.

The prescriptive method uses a series of material or assembly requirements to meet compliance. For example, one can use the tabulated values for mass walls that specify requirements for continuous insulation to determine compliance. This is the method that most manufacturers and designers are using today. Many of the products and systems on the market that are available to the masonry industry gain compliance through this method.

The prescriptive method may not be a part of the next code, so it is important to keep an open mind to developing newer technologies and improvements to existing systems for future compliance to the code. Using the prescriptive tables is straightforward, and it also is limiting regarding design flexibility. The prescriptive tables are easy to use, but make some masonry wall types difficult or impractical to build.

The compliant software method or the performance method uses software developed to determine code compliance using a straightforward method. There are two popular programs available, ENVSTD and COMcheck. Though the programs differ with their capabilities, they both can offer the masonry industry thermal property constants for various masonry wall configurations. Depending on which part of the energy code that needs to be met, these programs can offer wall configurations meeting code as well as having compliance with the IECC in many cases.

COMcheck is a bit more complex to use, but offers options to modify many components within the structure that then can be compiled to achieve compliance, offering the design community the ability to use the products we know how to bid, construct and sell in energy-efficient buildings of the future. Once the designer compiles all of the information, if compliance is not met, they can adjust various properties of the building envelope to meet the code requirements. COMcheck can be downloaded for no charge at www.energycodes.gov.

Whole building analysis is not widely used today, but it is the upcoming method that will prevail in the near future. As discussed as the upcoming status quo, this method uses software that takes the entire building and performs a whole building analysis that will analyze annual total energy use, rather than individual component compliance. This method shows that the new method of design should reduce energy costs, when compared to standard building methods. The whole building method not only takes into account the wall types, but also includes the entire building envelope information, mechanical and lighting specifications to determine compliance.
Originally published in Masonry magazine.

---