OSHA’s Heat Standard Likely to Affect Indoor Manufacturing Facilities | FIRST, VERIFY

Jul 16, 2021

This past spring, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced its intention to implement a new heat illness standard that will apply to indoor environments. The agency said it has manufacturing facilities in mind, as the rule targets “indoor workers without climate-controlled environments.”


A new heat illness standard is a top priority for OSHA under President Joe Biden, who is seeking to make good on his pledge to be “the most pro-union president you have ever seen.” Public Citizen and Senate Democrats petitioned Biden to encourage the new standard. House Democrats introduced legislation giving the agency two years to promulgate a heat standard. That proposal failed.


Noting that 18 of the last 19 years were the hottest on record and the intensity of recent heat waves have put many employees at an increased risk of heat illness or injury, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Jim Frederick announced in June that he intends to launch the rulemaking process by publishing a request for information. Frederick remarked that he hopes the agency will have “some very, very good, very thorough stakeholder engagement and involvement” while it develops the rule. “We hope that our request for information is very thoroughly responded to by as many stakeholders as possible.”


The proposed standard is in its preliminary stages and its contents are not yet clear. Requirements in several state standards offer clues. The OSHA standard may mandate break times and require employers to monitor employee acclimatization, as well as temperatures and humidity levels. Such provisions could effectively require costly changes in manufacturing worksites that do not have air conditioning and have a local source of heat, such as a furnace or an oven. Heat levels also can be affected by the presence of many workers at a site, especially if they are engaged in physically exerting tasks.


For example, a factory with employees melting substances like metal or glass would use machinery that can become extremely hot and affect the surrounding environment, regardless of outdoor temperatures. A factory with a furnace operating over 500 degrees causing nearby employees, who may be in heavy personal protective equipment, to perspire heavily, the standard may require cooler temperatures. Minnesota’s indoor heat standard requires employers to measure heat using “wet-bulb globe temperature” (WGBT) index, which is calculated by air temperature, air speed, humidity, and radiation. Permissible heat levels vary by levels of exertion as follows:


“Heavy work” is defined as exerting 350 or more kcal/hr. (kilocalories per hour), which can include heavy lifting and pushing, shovel work. The permissible heat level cannot exceed 77 degrees Fahrenheit.


“Moderate work” is defined as exerting 200 to 350 kcal/hr., which can include moderate lifting and pushing. Its permissible heat level is 80 degrees Fahrenheit.


“Light work” is defined as exerting 200 kcal/hr., which can include sitting or standing performing light hand or arm work. The permissible heat level is 86 degrees Fahrenheit.


In this example, a facility must calculate WGBT and constantly monitor and adjust conditions according to the highest level of exertion by any workers in the working environment. Some manufacturers might find this level of calculation unworkable because of varying or changing production schedules and varying outdoor heat conditions, particularly during heat waves.


There are a few things manufacturing employers can do to help prevent heat-related issues from creeping up, including making sure that employees have:


  • Access to water and stay hydrated;
  • Adequate rest time and take regular breaks; and
  • Access to the shade whenever possible.
  • Employers also can make sure that employees are properly acclimatized before engaging in strenuous activities.


States Considering Standards


On July 8, Oregon adopted a 180-day emergency rule protecting workers from indoor and outdoor heat. The requirements expand access to shade and cool water and include regular cool-down breaks, training, communication, emergency planning, and other measures. It also uses a tiered system with requirements starting up once the heat index is at 80 degrees and increasing when the heat index reaches 90. This temporary standard likely will be the basis of a permanent one to be adopted in the fall.


Virginia is drafting a standard with an intent to “reduce/eliminate employee injuries, illnesses, and fatalities due to exposure to excessive heat at indoor and outdoor places of work.”


General Duty Clause


Historically, OSHA has protected workers against extreme heat by using the General Duty Clause, a “catch-all” provision in the Occupational Safety and Health Act that requires employers to provide employment and places of employment that are free of recognized hazards, which, in the past, has included heat exposure. OSHA noted that in a 2019 case, A.H. Sturgill Roofing Co. v. Secretary of Labor, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) set a high bar for use of the General Duty Clause in cases involving heat exposure and other potentially dangerous environmental conditions. In 2020, an OSHRC judge followed Sturgill and overturned five heat hazard citations against the U.S. Postal Service, holding that OSHA could not rely on a National Weather Service guide to determine heat severity.


OSHA Recommendations


Currently, OSHA recommends that employers set thermostats between 68 degrees and 78 degrees Fahrenheit. OSHA also provides guidance on “Working In Outdoor and Indoor Heat Environments,” and it suggests that employers:


  • Provide workers with water and rest.
  • Allow new or returning workers to gradually increase workloads and take more frequent breaks as they acclimatize or build a tolerance for working in the heat.
  • Plan for emergencies and train workers on prevention.
  • Monitor workers for signs of illness.


Author: By Courtney M. Malveaux


Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/osha-s-heat-standard-likely-affect-indoor-manufacturing-facilities



You might also like

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management

During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

13 Oct, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: