BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 1167 (Leyva) - Employment safety: indoor workers: heat
regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: February 18, 2016 |Policy Vote: L. & I.R. 4 - 1 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: April 18, 2016 |Consultant: Robert Ingenito |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: SB 1167 would require the Occupational Safety and
Health Standards Board within the Department of Industrial
Relations (DIR) to adopt indoor heat prevention standards by
July 1, 2017 that provide equal or greater protection than
existing outdoor heat regulations.
Fiscal
Impact: DIR indicates that it would incur first-year costs of
$232,000 and second-year costs of $224,000 (special funds) to
create the indoor hear standard. Enforcement costs are unknown,
but could total $1.4 million annually (special funds, see Staff
Comments).
SB 1167 (Leyva) Page 1 of
?
Background: Current law provides a framework for a safe workplace through
DIR's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH, also
known as Cal/OSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Board (Standards Board) in the adoption and
enforcement of standards. All employers are required to provide
a safe and healthy workplace environment, and DOSH is empowered
to issue citations if there is evidence that an employee was
exposed to a workplace hazard in violation of a DOSH
requirement. Current law requires employers (with certain
exceptions) to establish, implement and maintain an effective
Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) that includes,
among other things, (1) a system for identifying workplace
hazards, including scheduled periodic inspections to identify
and correct for unsafe conditions and practices, (2) a training
program designed to instruct employees in general safe and
healthy work practices, and (3) a system for communicating with
employees, including provisions that encourage employees to
inform employers of hazards at the worksite without fear of
reprisal.
In the wake of a series of heat-related deaths in the
agricultural industry in July 2005, AB 805 (Chu) was introduced
to address heat illness by requiring the Standards Board to
adopt an effective occupational safety and health standard for
heat illness prevention and response for all employees at risk
of heat illness. The bill was held under submission on the
suspense file of this Committee; subsequently, however, the
Standards Board promulgated an outdoor heat illness prevention
regulation. This regulation (CA Code of Regulations, Title 8
§3395) requires employers to follow specified guidelines to
prevent heat illness in outdoor places of employment.
Specifically, all employers with outdoor worksites are required
to take the following steps to protect their employees from heat
illnesses:
Provide heat illness prevention training to all
employees, including supervisors.
Provide enough fresh water free of charge so that each
employee can drink at least one quart per hour, or four 8
ounce glasses, for the entire shift.
SB 1167 (Leyva) Page 2 of
?
Provide access to shade and encourage employees to take
a cool-down rest period in the shade for at least 5 minutes
when an employee believes he or she needs a preventive
recovery period.
Develop and implement written procedures for complying
with the heat illness prevention standard.
During the public comment period for the regulation, some
stakeholders argued that the regulation failed to protect many
at-risk workers who work indoors and are exposed to heat-related
illness. The Standard Board's Final Statement of Reasons in
support of the regulation responded to these concerns by
recognizing that heat illness is not limited to outdoor work
environments and committing to reconvene an advisory committee
to address the risk of heat illness in indoor work environments.
The Board also noted that existing regulations, particularly
with respect to IIPP, First Aid and Emergency Services, and
Provision of Drinking Water still apply to employers with indoor
workplaces.
In July 2007, DOSH indicated that it would not be seeking an
indoor heat illness standard, citing a small number of cases of
indoor heat investigated since 2006. Instead, DOSH concluded the
situation was best addressed with more attention to existing
worker training regulations as part of IIPP.
Proposed Law:
This bill would require that by July 1, 2017, DOSH propose for
review and adoption by the Standards Board, an indoor health and
safety standard that protects workers from heat-related illness
and injury and that meet or exceed the protections for outdoor
places of employment.
SB 1167 (Leyva) Page 3 of
?
Related
Legislation:
AB 838 (Swanson, 2009) and AB 1045 (Richardson, 2007) would
have required the Occupational Safety and Health Standards
Board to adopt a standard for controlling the risk of
occurrence of heat illness where employees work indoors. Both
measures were vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
Staff
Comments: As previously noted, DOSH's Heat Illness Prevention
standard requirements apply only to outdoor environments;
however, employers are still required to prevent hazardous
exposure to high indoor temperatures under the IIPP standard.
All IIPPs must include effective procedures for hazard
identification, evaluation and control, hazard correction,
investigation of employee injuries and illnesses, and
communication with employees about health and safety matters.
A recent Occupational Safety and Health Appeal Board decision
affirms the responsibility of employers to ensure indoor heat
illness is addressed through their IIPP. The case stemmed from a
2012 serious citation issued to Tri-State Staffing and warehouse
operator National Distribution Center for the heat illness
suffered by an employee who was working inside a metal freight
container with a temperature of over 100 degrees. DOSH penalized
both companies for failing to implement an effective IIPP and
both companies appealed the citation winning their case before
an administrative law judge (ALJ). In March 2015, DOSH appealed
that decision to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals
Board stating that the employers had failed to effectively
correct the indoor hazard and had not trained employees on
indoor heat exposure. In November 2015, the ALJ's decision was
overturned by the Appeals Board reinforcing the responsibility
that employers have to protect the health and safety of their
workers, including those working indoors.
SB 1167 (Leyva) Page 4 of
?
The bill's language is broad in nature. This, combined with the
complexity and potential contentiousness of the subject matter
increases the probability that the rulemaking process would be
fairly lengthy, requiring multiple advisory committee meetings.
DIR estimates that it would require at least 0.5 PY attorney
from DOSH's legal unit and 0.5 PY Senior Safety Engineer for a
minimum of 12 to 24 months to develop the proposed standard.
Staffing costs are estimated to be $232,000 in the first year,
and $224,000 in the second year.
At the same time, DOSH has prescribed state and federal mandates
to respond within certain time frames to complaints and
accidents depending on the severity of an incident. In order to
meet these mandates, and fulfill Cal/OSHA's duty to under an
approved state plan, DOSH would need sufficient resources to
respond to complaints and accidents resulting from violations of
the standard.
Additionally, DOSH would incur increased costs to enforcing the
new standard once it is developed. Enforcement costs cannot be
predicted with certainty until the scope of the new standard is
known. However, as an order of magnitude, DOSH currently
utilizes approximately 6 PY safety engineers in outdoor heat
enforcement. If the proposed regulation generated a similar
enforcement workload to that of outdoor heat, it would require 6
senior safety engineers totaling an additional $1.4 million
annually.
Any local government costs resulting from the mandate in this
measure are not state-reimbursable because the mandate only
involves the definition of a crime or the penalty for conviction
of a crime.
-- END --