PROPOSED RULES
LABOR AND INDUSTRIES
Original Notice.
Preproposal statement of inquiry was filed as WSR 07-01-101.
Title of Rule and Other Identifying Information: WAC 296-62-095 Heat-related illness in the outdoor environment.
Hearing Location(s): Comfort Inn - Tumwater, 1620 74th Avenue S.W., Tumwater, WA 98501, on April 28, 2008, at 1:00 p.m.; at the Quality Inn Baron Suites, 100 East Kellogg Road, Bellingham, WA 98226, on April 29, 2008, at 1:00 p.m.; at the Yakima Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, 1507 North First Street, Yakima, WA 98901, on April 30, 2008, at 9:00 a.m.; at the Red Lion Hotel Richland - Hanford House, 802 George Washington Way, Richland, WA 99352, on April 30, 2008, at 2:00 p.m.; and at the Red Lion Hotel at the Park, West 303 North River Drive, Spokane, WA 99201, on May 1, 2008, at 1:00 p.m.
Date of Intended Adoption: June 4, 2008.
Submit Written Comments to: Jamie Scibelli, P.O. Box 44620, Olympia, WA 98504-4620, e-mail scij235@lni.wa.gov, fax (360) 902-5619, by May 2, 2008. In addition to written comments, the department will accept comments submitted to fax (360) 902-5619. Comments submitted by fax must be ten pages or less.
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities: Contact Beverly Clark by April 14, 2008, (360) 902-5516 or clah235@lni.wa.gov.
Purpose of the Proposal and Its Anticipated Effects, Including Any Changes in Existing Rules: New sections WAC 296-62-095 Heat-related illness in the outdoor environment, 296-62-09510 Scope and purpose, 296-62-09520 Definitions, 296-62-09530 Employer responsibility, 296-62-09540 Drinking water, 296-62-09550 Responding to signs and symptoms of heat-related illness, and 296-62-09560 Information and training.
The Washington state Constitution mandates that "the legislature shall pass laws for the protection of persons working in mines, factories, and other employments dangerous to life or deleterious to health."1 In enacting chapter 49.17 RCW, Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), the Washington legislature found "that personal injuries and illnesses arising out of conditions of employment impose a substantial burden upon employers and employees in terms of lost production, wage loss, medical expenses, and payment of benefits under the Industrial Insurance Act. Therefore, in the public interest for welfare of the people of the state of Washington and in order to assure, insofar as may be reasonably possible, safe and healthful working conditions for every man and woman working in the state of Washington, the legislature... in keeping with the mandates of Article II, section 35 of the state Constitution, declares its purpose by the provisions of this chapter to create, maintain, continue, and enhance the industrial safety and health program of the state...."2
WISHA mandates that the director of L&I shall "[p]rovide for the promulgation of health and safety standards and the control of conditions in all work places concerning... harmful physical agents which shall set a standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity."3
On July 18, 2005, a farm worker collapsed while cutting weeds with a machete in hop fields near Yakima. He died, and the coroner ruled that the cause of death was heat stroke. L&I investigated the death and later cited and fined the company for an inadequate safety program, not providing drinking water, and lack of training for workers. The safety program should have included a plan to prevent heat stress by providing rest breaks, shade, worker hydration and administrative controls such as a work-rest regimen.
The citation was issued December 23, 2005, and the subsequent appeal was affirmed with a negotiated penalty of $3,000. L&I did not seek criminal sanctions since the violations cited were not considered willful (a prerequisite for a referral to a county prosecuting attorney).
Immediately following this workplace death, L&I heard from farm worker advocates that they were very concerned about this fatality and that they wanted an emergency rule issued similar to California's emergency heat-stress rule. L&I responded by issuing a hazard alert to the agriculture industry, and then proceeded with a study to determine what was needed to protect workers for the 2006 summer season.
L&I reviewed the workers' compensation injury and illness claims from 1995 through 2005 and found that one other person had died from heat stress in Washington (a lawn-service employee working in the Yakima area). The study also found approximately four hundred fifty workers' compensation claims for heat-related illness during the same time period. These fatalities may have been prevented with rules that are more protective of workers.
Based on this information, L&I evaluated its existing rules to determine if they adequately addressed heat-related illness. After this evaluation, L&I believed that these fatalities and illnesses may have been prevented with rules that are more protective of workers. In Rios v. Dept. of L&I, the Washington supreme court concluded that L&I must consider rule making for recognized work place hazards.4
During that time, L&I held extensive meetings with business and labor representatives and worker advocates, and began developing an awareness and education campaign that would occur over the summer of 2006 regardless of the final decision regarding adopting a rule. Worker advocate groups felt very strongly about the heat-stress issue and didn't believe this emergency rule was specific enough. On the other hand, some employers wanted no rule at all.
In the end, L&I concluded that the best approach was to adopt an emergency rule that extended an existing rule on indoor work in hot temperatures (WAC 296-62-09013) to include outdoor work. The emergency rule was effective June 1, 2006, and remained in place for one hundred twenty days.
The 2006 emergency rule stated that every employer must evaluate their workplace and have procedures in place if their employees will be at risk from heat-related illnesses. They were required to look at things such as adequate water and shade, how to recognize heat stress, and what to do about it.
That summer, L&I launched a coordinated hazard-awareness campaign with business and labor organizations concentrating on businesses most affected by hot weather, such as construction (especially road work) and agriculture. As part of regularly scheduled inspections and consultations in affected industries, L&I staff also visited farms and other employers throughout the summer to make sure they were protecting their workers from heat-related illness.
In the summer of 2006, Washington state suffered the loss of two employees due to heat-related illness.
| - | On May 18, 2006, an employee passed away as a result of heat-related illness he developed on July 12, 2004. The employee was a roofer and collapsed while working. He arrived at the emergency room with a core temperature of 108ºF. The employee did return to consciousness but never fully recovered. At the time of his death, he was awaiting a liver transplant. |
| - | On June 26, 2006, at approximately 2:30 p.m., a laborer/pipefitter became ill on an excavation project in Carson, Washington. The crew had been working since 8:30 a.m., and the ambient temperature rose throughout the day to over 100°F. He was transported to Emmanuel Hospital in Portland, Oregon, where he died five days later, on July 1, 2006. |
From January to April 2007, L&I drafted, revised and circulated a draft rule. During this time, the draft rule was widely distributed to stakeholders for comment. In addition, L&I solicited input from stakeholders through several stakeholder discussions then updated the draft based on stakeholder input. This language was posted on the L&I web site and circulated to stakeholders that same day. Before the adoption of the second emergency rule, L&I met with business representatives to discuss the draft language. L&I updated the language as a result of this discussion.
Based on this input, L&I developed a draft rule that was significantly different from the emergency rule language adopted during the summer of 2006. This new language clearly communicated L&I's expectations while allowing employers the ability to create heat-related illness procedures that will be most effective for their worksites. The draft rule was sent to stakeholders for a review process. L&I also held a stakeholder meeting.
While L&I planned to continue development of a permanent heat-related illness rule, it was important to have a rule that provided clear expectations to employers in place during the summer of 2007. This rule was intended to reduce or eliminate the number of serious incidents and fatalities by increasing worker protection from heat-related illness while L&I continued the permanent rule-making process. An emergency rule was necessary to ensure protection of workers during the summer months when there is a greater risk for heat-related illness. In addition, L&I provided awareness training for employers over the summer.
On June 5, 2007, L&I filed a second emergency rule. Additional training materials and courses were offered. Also during the summer, L&I developed and distributed public service announcements for HRI prevention in Washington state. L&I conducted two hundred forty-two HRI consultation visits for employers and seven hundred seven compliance inspections. No employee HRI deaths occurred in 2007.
From August 9, 2007, through September 14, 2007, L&I solicited comments on the emergency rule language. L&I also held stakeholder meetings to discuss the rule language in Yakima, Spokane, Tumwater, and Bellevue. After L&I reviewed the stakeholder input, the emergency rule language was updated based on the comments received.
This updated draft was discussed with a group of business and labor representatives in November 2007. As a result of this discussion, L&I developed a draft for proposal.
1Wash. Const. art. 2 § 35.
3RCW 49.17.050(4).
4Hillis, 131 Wn.2d at 383.
Reasons Supporting Proposal: See Purpose above.
Statutory Authority for Adoption: RCW 49.17.010, 49.17.040, 49.17.050, and 49.17.060.
Statute Being Implemented: Chapter 49.17 RCW.
Rule is not necessitated by federal law, federal or state court decision.
Name of Proponent: Department of labor and industries, governmental.
Name of Agency Personnel Responsible for Drafting: Tracy Spencer, Tumwater, Washington, (360) 902-5530; Implementation and Enforcement: Stephen M. Cant, Tumwater, Washington, (360) 902-5495.
A small business economic impact statement has been prepared under chapter 19.85 RCW.
The following small business economic impact statement (SBEIS) was prepared in compliance with the Regulatory Fairness Act (RFA), RCW 19.85.040, and provides an analysis of the likely cost per full-time equivalent (FTE) for small businesses compared to large businesses associated with implementation of WAC 296-62-095. In particular, the following rule provisions were analyzed:
| ▪ | WAC 296-62-09530 Employer responsibility. |
| ▪ | WAC 296-62-09540 Drinking water. |
| ▪ | WAC 296-62-09550 Responding to signs and symptoms of heat-related illness. |
| ▪ | WAC 296-62-09560 Information and training. |
1.1 Cost Survey Methodology - As part of both the cost-benefit analysis and the SBEIS, L&I estimated the probable costs of compliance for Washington businesses if the draft proposed heat-related illness permanent rule were adopted. Primarily, the assessment of quantifiable costs occurred in three steps discussed below: (1) Developing and implementing a sampling strategy, (2) designing and sending out a cost survey to employers, and (3) estimating the monetized costs for the various components of the draft proposed rule that may have an economic impact.
1.2 Sampling Plan - The development of the sampling strategy for the heat-related illness cost survey required an unusual amount of care due to the nature of the injuries and illnesses the rule seeks to prevent. That is, while it might seem appropriate to sample those industries known to have the highest number of heat-related illness workers' compensation claims1, heat-related illness may be an underlying cause for primary diagnoses related to accidents. In other words, these accident-related injuries may really be a function of heat-related illness symptoms workers were experiencing prior to the accident (such as dizziness, or orthostatic intolerance, Kenefick and Sawka, 2007) (see state of Washington office of the governor, 2007). For instance, in their study of heat-related illness among workers in Italy, Morabito and colleagues (2006) note that "some occupational injuries might be induced by a previous lipothymia or loss of consciousness due to environmental factors, but discharge data only contains the ICD classification of traumatism in the principal diagnoses."2 While more suggestive than conclusive, the authors also found that, in each of the study months, the greatest number of reported work-related accidents happened on days when the daytime apparent temperature was between 76.6 and 81.5°F (Morabito, et al., 2006). This is consistent with Ramsey, et al.'s (1983) findings that unsafe work behavior increases in warmer temperatures. The authors also report findings from previous studies suggesting a relationship between environmental temperature and injury rates, whereby injuries are more common at both colder and warmer temperatures (that is, the relationship between the two variables is that of a U-shaped curve).
In addition, L&I assumes that exposure to heat-related illness hazards may be slightly more evenly distributed across industries and businesses employing outdoor employees than the workers' compensation claims rates by industry would suggest. For one thing, the heat-related illness claims reported by Bonauto and colleagues (2006) and broken out by industry were representative of both outdoor and indoor workers (though 78.5% were outdoor workers). In addition, L&I chose to develop a sampling strategy that accounts for the possibility that certain industries may actually have outdoor employees exposed to heat-related illness hazards in greater numbers than their claims rates would suggest. This could happen, for example, in industries where HRI is more likely to be the first and perhaps undiagnosed of what are really two workplace injuries or illnesses (e.g., in industries where HRI may be more likely to result in a workplace accident). Another example of when one might expect true exposure rates to be concealed by an examination of claims rates is when particular industries have already been taking steps all along to prevent heat-related illness such that exposure is actually greater than their HRI claims rates would suggest. This is all to say that the sampling frame was developed based on the industries in which workers were thought to be exposed to HRI hazards rather than on workers' compensation claims data.
Another consideration was the side of the state in which employers were located. This was important given that a disproportionate share of heat-related illness claims occur in eastern Washington. That is, while eastern Washington represents only 22% of the employed population, it represents 47% of HRI claims (Bonauto, et al., 2006). However, this factor was ultimately not considered in the development of the sampling frame, because employees in western Washington are in some ways at more risk even though they may face less overall exposure to HRI hazards. For example, a recent HRI fatality occurred in western Washington in the city of Vancouver, which has relatively more variation in temperature during the summer months. This temperature variation subjects employees in western Washington to greater risk in some sense, in that they are less likely to be acclimatized to the heat, a factor that is known to predispose individuals to HRI (Bonauto, et al., 2007; Bonauto, et al., 2006; Morabito, et al., 2006; Epstein, et al., 1999; Bricknell, 1996; Gardner, et al., 1996).
The sampling strategy involved the following three steps, each of which will be reviewed in more detail below: (1) Determining the appropriate sample size, (2) building the appropriate sampling frame based on likely exposure of outdoor employees to HRI hazards, and (3) using proportionate stratified random sampling to select the number of businesses within each industry sector that would be randomly selected.
1.3 Sample Size - In determining the appropriate sample size needed to get valid estimates for the cost of compliance with the draft proposed HRI rule, L&I considered a couple of factors; namely, the desired level of confidence and uncertainty in the cost estimates, and the anticipated response rate. Each of these is discussed below.
The department first considered the level of confidence and uncertainty it was willing to accept in order to ensure the most rigorous and statistically valid compliance cost estimates. L&I chose conventional levels, 95% confidence with ±5% uncertainty. It next considered the size of the business account population from which the sample would be selected. After screening out locations that had closed, L&I pulled addresses and industry information for 230,715 physical locations of Washington businesses from its administrative data warehouse (refreshed as of April 3, 2007).
Given that the department did not know key population characteristics (mean, variance, and standard deviation) with respect to each parameter of interest, the desired sample size was estimated based on a formula that assumes an infinitely large population.3 It uses the most conservative estimate of probability (p = .5), as well as the desired precision (95% confidence level; ±5% uncertainty). One can make similar calculations using the actual known population size (N = 230,715 for all physical locations open and active as of April 3, 2007), but will get essentially the same result for the desired sample size (n = 384 using known N4 as opposed to n = 385 assuming an infinitely large N).
In determining the requisite sample size, L&I also took into account the relatively low response rates it has historically reported for surveys to businesses regarding the costs of proposed rule making.5 This was done by reviewing a number of economic analyses and rule-making files involving surveys conducted over the past decade. Table A-1 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis presents a summary of the findings, including sample size, sampling methods, number of respondents, and response rate for each survey. Of the nine self-administered, mail-in cost surveys included in this review, sample sizes ranged from three hundred twenty-three to five thousand six hundred forty-four and response rates ranged from 8% to 25%.
The final determination of sample size employed the above information to attain a desired sample size given that population parameters with respect to cost are unknown, the desirable confidence level is 95% (with +/- 5% uncertainty), and response rates for surveys of this nature tend to range from 8 to 25%. It also took into account the fact that the sampling frame is perhaps not as efficiently targeted as L&I would have liked given the somewhat allusive nature of heat-related illness exposure noted earlier (methods for deriving the sampling frame are discussed below). L&I ultimately chose a sample size of five thousand five hundred because it is sufficient to yield statistically significant cost estimates, assuming a 7% response rate and conventional levels for statistical validity. That is, if assumptions were to hold, one would expect a returned sample size of three hundred eighty-five, which would allow for statistically valid estimates of the overall cost of compliance. Yet there is most likely nonresponse bias in terms of who responded to the survey and who did not. This issue is discussed in section 6.2 of the cost-benefit analysis.
1.4 Sampling Frame - In building the sampling frame from which businesses would be randomly selected, L&I began with the total population of all open and active physical locations in the department's administrative database, including both state fund and self-insured employers. It then excluded industries from the sampling frame in three phases. First, industry sectors at the 2-digit NAICS-level were eliminated if they were unlikely to have any outdoor employees exposed to HRI hazards. Likewise, industries were eliminated at the 3- and then 6-digit NAICS-levels if they were unlikely to have outdoor employees exposed to HRI hazards (see Figure A-1 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis for a complete list of industries excluded from the sampling frame). Given the broad scope of the rule and the nature of heat-related illness hazards for outdoor workers, it was not possible to zero in on the exact industries likely to be impacted by this draft proposed rule. Instead, the sampling frame reflects those specific industries thought to be most likely to have outdoor workers. It is important to note that businesses in industries not included in the sampling frame will still need to be in compliance with the proposed heat-related illness rule if it is adopted and they employ outdoor workers in the summer months. Similarly, businesses in industries included in the sampling frame will not be subject to the rule if they do not employ any outdoor workers.
1.5 Proportionate Stratified Random Sampling - In conjunction with determining the desired sample size and the appropriate sampling frame, L&I also considered which sampling method would yield the most accurate cost estimates. The objective was to randomly select employers such that industries that received surveys were represented proportionate to their share of the overall sampling frame. Given this, L&I employed proportionate stratified random sampling by industry. This method allowed the department to create strata at the industry-level that were assumed to be somewhat homogenous with respect to the likely costs of implementing the draft proposed heat-related illness rule, thus helping to reduce sampling variability (Pedhazur & Schmelkin, 1991: 331). To do this, L&I first determined what percentage of the overall sampling frame (N = 87,351) each 2-digit industry sector comprised. It then determined the sample size needed for each industry by multiplying that industry's proportion of the sampling frame by the overall desired sample size (n = 5,500). To see the resulting sample sizes by industry, please refer to Table A-2 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis.
In order to randomly select businesses, L&I used an online random number generator (http://www.random.org) to obtain a list of random numbers for each industry that was the exact number of the sample size for each industry. Next, the department numbered each business within each industry from 1 to n and used Vlookup in Excel to "grab" each business account that corresponded to a randomly generated number. This process of selection was not perfect, however, as the list of random numbers drew randomly with replacement such that there were some duplicate random draws. As a result, one of each duplicate pair was removed, as well as any accounts for which the department did not have a mailing address.6 In the end, five thousand two hundred and six surveys were sent to employers, rather than the five thousand five hundred originally planned. This is because one hundred forty-two businesses in the randomly selected lists were found to be missing physical location addresses or to be closed. In addition, another one hundred fifty-two were one of a duplicate randomly drawn pair that was eliminated from the list. (Please see Table A-2 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis.)
1.6 Survey - The cost survey sent to randomly selected businesses provided respondents with information about the existing standard (if one indeed existed) and then told them what the proposed rule requires and what this means for them. In order to establish a baseline, the survey then asked respondents to answer questions about what they were doing in 2006 to be in compliance with existing standards (such as chapter 296-800 WAC, Safety and health core rules). If respondents were not doing something in 2006 that is part of the proposed rule, the survey asked what they would do to be in compliance if the rule were adopted. It also asked whether there would be an additional cost to their business and, if so, how much it would likely be. (Please see Figure A-2 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis for a copy of the survey that was sent.)
The survey was sent by mail to randomly selected business[es] ("Attn: business safety manager") on June 4, 2007. Given that it asked respondents to estimate current and future costs, it was important to clarify that current costs referred to costs in the absence of any HRI rule. Since the HRI emergency rule for the summer of 2007 took effect at around the same time as the survey was disseminated to randomly selected businesses,7 L&I sent a follow-up postcard indicating that survey respondents should think of their "current" activities and associated costs as what they were doing prior to the emergency rule taking effect. This is the best tool L&I had to communicate to employers the assumptions they should make in order to arrive at the best baseline cost estimates possible. That said, it is noteworthy that many of the survey recipients that called L&I's economic analyst were actually not familiar with the emergency rules from 2006 or 2007 and also had not heard about the draft proposed permanent rule.
1.7 Response Rate - Between June 11 and July 13, 2007, L&I received eight hundred four completed surveys from businesses of the five thousand two hundred six surveys sent. Of those sent, seven hundred twenty are presumed to have been undeliverable because the follow-up postcard was "returned to sender."8 In addition, nine survey recipients contacted L&I by mail, e-mail, or phone to inform the department that their businesses had either closed or were not operational in 2006 (the year for which costs were to be estimated). All told, the response rate for completed surveys of the five thousand two hundred six sent was 15% (eight hundred four out of five thousand two hundred six) and the response rate for those presumed to have been successfully delivered to active accounts was 18% (eight hundred four out of four thousand four hundred seventy-seven). Of the eight hundred four respondents, four hundred eighty-three businesses (or 60%) reported that they had employees who worked outdoors in 2006. Respondents were instructed to only continue answering the survey if they had outdoor employees in 2006, so it is important to note that the four hundred eighty-three "useable" surveys represent 9% of the total surveys sent, 11% of those presumed to have been successfully delivered, and 60% of the eight hundred four completed surveys that L&I received. (Please see Table A-5 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis, which accounts for all the surveys sent.)
Of the four hundred eighty-three survey respondents who had outdoor employees in 2006, response rates by industry varied some from what L&I would have expected based on the sampling frame shown in Table A-2 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis.9 That said, some industry-specific response rates were roughly proportionate to the number of surveys sent to that industry. For example, the construction industry represented 37.5% of surveys sent and 40.6% of respondents with outdoor employees. Yet other industries appear to have been represented more (or less) heavily in the pool of respondents relative to the sampling plan. For example, the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industry represented about 10.5% of the sampling frame but 18.2% of respondents. This may suggest that this industry sector is more likely to have outdoor employees relative to other industries in the sampling frame. It is also worth noting that a relatively high proportion of respondents with outdoor workers fell into the "other" category (about 19.3%). This may be explained by the fact that some respondents likely did not think any of the industry categories presented as options on the survey adequately reflected the nature of their work. (Please refer to Table A-3 and Table A-4 in the appendix of the cost-benefit analysis for a detailed breakdown of response rate by industry.)
Of the four hundred eighty-three respondents with outdoor workers in 2006, four hundred thirty-three supplied sufficient information to determine whether or not they were a small business. Of those four hundred thirty-three, approximately 89% (three hundred eighty-five) were small businesses, defined in the Regulatory Fairness Act (chapter 19.85 RCW) as any business entity that has fifty or fewer employees. This is roughly comparable to the percentage of Washington businesses statewide that meet this definition (about 86%). In order to determine whether or not a business was small, the department considered responses to two questions: (1) The reported number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 2006, and (2) the reported number of part-time hours temporary/seasonal or part-time workers worked in 2006. A calculation was then made to convert part-time hours to FTEs by dividing the total number of part-time hours reported for a given business by two thousand eighty. FTEs and converted FTEs were then summed and small businesses were determined to be those in which the sum of these two fields was equal to or less than fifty FTEs. One caveat is that if respondents did not complete the question asking how many FTEs they had in 2006, they were not included as part of the four hundred thirty-three respondents supplying sufficient information. If, however, only the field for part-time annual hours was missing or a legitimate skip, the reported number of FTEs was used to determine if the business was small or not.
2. Assessing Economic Impact by Size of Business - This SBEIS considers the median cost per FTE per business for each component of the proposed HRI rule. Upper bound cost estimates were obtained using data from survey respondents who reported there would be an additional cost of a given component of the rule, provided a quantitative cost estimate, and also provided enough information such that the department could calculate firm size. Lower bound cost estimates were obtained using this same data, but also including data from respondents who reported that a given component would cost the same or less to implement in the future. For respondents reporting that cost would be the same or less, the department assigned a $0 cost. Given the greater data requirements per respondent (e.g., number of FTEs) required for the SBEIS, the sample sizes will not match up exactly with those presented in the cost-benefit analysis. This is because there was greater opportunity for missing data due to item nonresponse in the case of the SBEIS.
The Regulatory Fairness Act, RCW 19.85.040(1), requires that in determining whether a proposed rule will disproportionately impact small businesses, the department compare "the cost of compliance for small businesses with the cost of compliance for the ten percent of businesses that are the largest businesses required to comply with the proposed rules..." This comparison can be made based on the cost per FTE. Conveniently, the number of returned surveys with outdoor workers L&I received was four hundred eighty-three and the number of businesses that reported having fifty-one or more employees was forty-eight. Since forty-eight is approximately 10% of four hundred eighty-three, the costs to all of these bigger businesses have been included in this analysis and are compared to all the other businesses that responded (the latter of whom had fifty or fewer employees).
The upper bound estimates in the following sections are distinct from the upper bound estimates presented in the cost-benefit analysis in that those presented here include respondents who provided inconsistent responses (suggesting bias). This is because the purpose here is to get the best estimate of the extent to which there may be a disproportionate impact on small businesses rather than to get the most accurate cost estimate. As a result, the upper bound estimates presented here are likely inflated but work from the assumption that they are inflated in the same direction and to the relatively same extent for both small and big businesses.
2.1. IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING TEMPERATURE AND OTHER FACTORS:
2.1.1. Upper Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - On the survey sent to employers, question 6b asked respondents whether there would be a cost to put in place measures to identify and evaluate temperature and environmental factors if this proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately thirty-four employers reported that there would be an additional cost to their business to take steps to identify and evaluate temperature and environmental factors if the draft proposed HRI rule were adopted. Of these thirty-four respondents, only three businesses had more than fifty employees, while thirty-one of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the three businesses with fifty-one or more employees who reported an additional cost, the median daily cost per FTE was $1.48. The corresponding cost for the thirty-one small businesses was $2.20 per FTE per day. In light of this, the upper bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 1.5 times greater for small businesses compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Upper Bound - Survey Questions 6b and 6c: Cost Per Day Per FTE to Identify and Evaluate Environmental Factors (Employers Responding 'MORE' to 6b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 11.50 | 1.19 |
| Standard Error | 4.41 | 0.39 |
| Median | 2.20 | 1.48 |
| Standard Deviation | 24.58 | 0.67 |
| Sample Variance | 604.14 | 0.45 |
| Skewness | 3.00 | -1.58 |
| Range | 99.98 | 1.25 |
| Minimum | 0.03 | 0.42 |
| Maximum | 100.00 | 1.67 |
| Sum | 356.57 | 3.58 |
| Count | 31.00 | 3.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 9.02 | 1.68 |
| Lower Bound: Survey Questions 6, 6b, and 6c: Cost Per Day Per FTE to Identify and Evaluate Environmental Factors (Employers Responding 'LESS,' 'SAME' or 'MORE' to 6b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 1.09 | 0.08 |
| Standard Error | 0.42 | 0.05 |
| Median | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mode | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Standard Deviation | 8.11 | 0.33 |
| Sample Variance | 65.81 | 0.11 |
| Kurtosis | 108.86 | 19.06 |
| Skewness | 10.06 | 4.44 |
| Range | 100.00 | 1.67 |
| Minimum | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Maximum | 100.00 | 1.67 |
| Sum | 402.18 | 3.58 |
| Count | 368.00 | 46.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 0.83 | 0.10 |
2.2. PREVENTING, CONTROLLING, AND CORRECTING HRI HAZARDS:
2.2.1 Upper Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - On the survey sent to employers, question 7b asked respondents whether there would be a cost to prevent, control, and correct HRI hazards if this draft proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately forty-two employers reported that there would be an additional cost to their business to take steps to prevent, control, and correct HRI hazards if the draft proposed HRI rule were adopted. Of these forty-two respondents, only four businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while thirty-eight of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the four businesses with fifty-one or more employees who reported an additional cost, the median daily cost per FTE was $3.15. The corresponding cost for the thirty-eight small businesses was $6.83 per FTE per day. In light of this, the upper bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 2.2 times greater for small businesses compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Upper Bound – Survey Questions 7b and 7c: Cost Per
Day Per FTE to Prevent, Control, and Correct HRI Hazards (Employers Reporting 'MORE' to 7b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 32.60 | 7.43 |
| Standard Error | 11.66 | 5.29 |
| Median | 6.83 | 3.15 |
| Standard Deviation | 71.86 | 10.57 |
| Sample Variance | 5163.55 | 111.80 |
| Kurtosis | 27.55 | 3.70 |
| Skewness | 4.96 | 1.90 |
| Range | 432.50 | 22.89 |
| Minimum | 0.83 | 0.27 |
| Maximum | 433.33 | 23.16 |
| Sum | 1238.90 | 29.72 |
| Count | 38.00 | 4.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 23.62 | 16.82 |
2.2.2 Lower Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - The lower bound estimate is also based on question 7b from the survey, which asked respondents whether there would be a cost to put in place measures to prevent, control, and correct HRI hazards if this draft proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately four hundred thirteen employers reported that it would cost "less," the "same," or "more." Of these four hundred thirteen respondents, forty-four businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while three hundred sixty-nine of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the forty-four businesses with fifty-one or more employees, the median daily cost per FTE was $0. The corresponding cost for the three hundred sixty-nine small businesses was also $0 per FTE per day. In light of this, the lower bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately the same for small businesses as compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Lower Bound – Survey Questions 7b and 7c: Cost Per
Day Per FTE to Prevent, Control, and Correct HRI Hazards (Employers Reporting 'LESS,' 'SAME,' or 'MORE' to 7b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 3.36 | 0.68 |
| Standard Error | 1.29 | 0.53 |
| Median | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mode | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Standard Deviation | 24.85 | 3.53 |
| Sample Variance | 617.62 | 12.47 |
| Kurtosis | 245.97 | 40.73 |
| Skewness | 14.62 | 6.30 |
| Range | 433.33 | 23.16 |
| Minimum | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Maximum | 433.33 | 23.16 |
| Sum | 1238.90 | 29.72 |
| Count | 369.00 | 44.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 2.54 | 1.07 |
2.3. DRINKING WATER:
2.3.1. Upper Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - On the survey sent to employers, question 11 asked respondents whether there would be an additional cost to provide one quart of water per employee per hour per day if this draft proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately one hundred five employers reported that there would be an additional cost to their business to provide this water. Of these one hundred five respondents, thirteen businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while ninety-two of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the thirteen businesses with fifty-one or more employees who reported an additional cost, the median daily cost per FTE was $0.33. The corresponding cost for the ninety-two small businesses was $2.48 per FTE per day. In light of this, the upper bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 7.5 times greater for small businesses compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Upper Bound – Survey Questions 11 and 11a: Cost Per
Day Per FTE to Provide 1 Quart of Water Per Outdoor Employee Per Hour Per Day (Employers Reporting 'MORE' to 11) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 12.19 | 1.85 |
| Standard Error | 5.58 | 0.63 |
| Median | 2.48 | 0.33 |
| Standard Deviation | 53.50 | 2.28 |
| Sample Variance | 2862.77 | 5.18 |
| Kurtosis | 78.14 | -0.89 |
| Skewness | 8.59 | 0.95 |
| Range | 499.98 | 5.85 |
| Minimum | 0.02 | 0.09 |
| Maximum | 500.00 | 5.93 |
| Sum | 1121.64 | 23.99 |
| Count | 92.00 | 13.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 11.08 | 1.38 |
2.3.2. Lower Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - The lower bound estimate is also based on question 11 from the survey, which asked respondents whether there would be a cost to provide one quart of water per employee per hour per day if this draft proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately three hundred sixty employers reported that it would cost "less," the "same," or "more." Of these three hundred sixty respondents, forty businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while three hundred twenty of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the forty businesses with fifty-one or more employees, the median daily cost per FTE was $0. The corresponding cost for the three hundred twenty small businesses was also $0 per FTE per day. In light of this, the lower bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately the same for small businesses as compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Lower Bound – Survey Questions 11 and 11a: Cost Per
Day Per FTE to Provide 1 Quart of Water Per Outdoor Employee Per Hour Per Day (Employers Reporting 'LESS,' 'SAME,' or 'MORE' to 11) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 3.37 | 0.60 |
| Standard Error | 1.16 | 0.24 |
| Median | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mode | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Standard Deviation | 20.67 | 1.54 |
| Sample Variance | 427.21 | 2.36 |
| Kurtosis | 129.97 | 6.25 |
| Skewness | 10.72 | 2.72 |
| Range | 288.00 | 5.93 |
| Minimum | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Maximum | 288.00 | 5.93 |
| Sum | 1077.53 | 23.99 |
| Count | 320.00 | 40.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 2.27 | 0.49 |
2.4. RESPONDING TO SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS OF HRI:
2.4.1. Upper Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - On the survey sent to employers, question 13 asked respondents whether there would be an additional cost to cool employees experiencing the signs of symptoms of heat-related illness if this proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately twenty-five employers reported that there would be an additional cost to their business. Of these twenty-five respondents, five businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while twenty of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the five businesses with fifty-one or more employees who reported an additional cost, the median daily cost per FTE was $0.74. The corresponding cost for the twenty small businesses was $5.78 per FTE per day. In light of this, the upper bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 7.8 times greater for small businesses compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Upper Bound – Survey Questions 13b and 13c: Cost Per
Day (in Dollars) to Cool Employees Experiencing Signs and Symptoms of HRI (Employers Reporting 'MORE' to 13b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 193.30 | 1.27 |
| Standard Error | 169.15 | 0.60 |
| Median | 5.78 | 0.74 |
| Standard Deviation | 756.44 | 1.33 |
| Sample Variance | 572200.82 | 1.78 |
| Kurtosis | 19.79 | 0.41 |
| Skewness | 4.44 | 1.13 |
| Range | 3399.77 | 3.28 |
| Minimum | 0.23 | 0.05 |
| Maximum | 3400.00 | 3.33 |
| Sum | 3866.03 | 6.33 |
| Count | 20.00 | 5.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 354.02 | 1.65 |
2.4.2. Lower Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - The lower bound estimate is also based on question 13 from the survey, which asked respondents whether there would be a cost to cool employees experiencing the signs of symptoms of heat-related illness. Approximately four hundred six employers reported that it would cost "less," the "same," or "more." Of these four hundred six respondents, forty-five businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while three hundred sixty-one of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the forty-five businesses with fifty-one or more employees, the median daily cost per FTE was $0. The corresponding cost for the three hundred sixty-one small businesses was also $0 per FTE per day. In light of this, the lower bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately the same for small businesses as compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Lower Bound: Survey Questions 13b and 13c: Cost Per
Day (in Dollars) to Cool Employees Experiencing Signs and Symptoms of HRI (Employers Reporting 'LESS,' 'SAME,' or 'MORE' to 13b) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 10.71 | 0.14 |
| Standard Error | 9.44 | 0.08 |
| Median | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Mode | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Standard Deviation | 179.33 | 0.57 |
| Sample Variance | 32160.34 | 0.32 |
| Kurtosis | 357.33 | 24.69 |
| Skewness | 18.86 | 4.84 |
| Range | 3400.00 | 3.33 |
| Minimum | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Maximum | 3400.00 | 3.33 |
| Sum | 3866.03 | 6.27 |
| Count | 361.00 | 45.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 18.56 | 0.17 |
2.5. INFORMATION AND TRAINING:
2.5.1. Upper Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate - On the survey sent to employers, question 14 asked respondents whether there would be an additional cost to provide information and training on HRI if this proposed rule component were adopted. Question 14a asked those who responded "yes" how much they spent on information and training in 2006. Question 15 asked all respondents how much it would likely cost to provide HRI information and training in the future if the draft proposed rule were adopted. Approximately two hundred sixty employers provided sufficient information to subtract current costs from future costs (or use future costs alone for those who responded "no" to question 14). Of these two hundred sixty respondents, thirty-three businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while two hundred twenty-seven of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the thirty-three businesses with fifty-one or more employees who reported an additional cost, the median annual cost per FTE was $5.75. The corresponding cost for the two hundred twenty-seven small businesses was $50.00 per FTE per year. In light of this, the upper bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 8.7 times greater for small businesses compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Upper Bound – Survey Questions 14, 14a, and 15:
Annual Cost (in Dollars) to Provide Training on the
Prevention of Heat-Related Illness (Employers' Future - Current Reported Costs) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 193.88 | 17.95 |
| Standard Error | 41.48 | 6.41 |
| Median | 50.00 | 5.75 |
| Mode | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Standard Deviation | 624.91 | 36.83 |
| Sample Variance | 390511.03 | 1356.50 |
| Kurtosis | 55.54 | 13.57 |
| Skewness | 5.51 | 3.52 |
| Range | 9539.90 | 184.88 |
| Minimum | -2901.60 | -0.84 |
| Maximum | 6638.30 | 184.04 |
| Sum | 44010.08 | 592.41 |
| Count | 227.00 | 33.00 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 81.73 | 13.06 |
2.5.2. Lower Bound Cost Per FTE Estimate10 - The lower bound estimate is based on questions 14 and 15 from the survey, which asked respondents whether there would be a cost to provide HRI information and training to employees if this draft proposed rule component were adopted. Approximately one hundred fifty-four employers reported that they were not providing information and training on HRI in 2006. Of these one hundred fifty-four respondents, fifteen businesses had fifty-one or more employees, while one hundred thirty-nine of these respondents had fifty or fewer employees. Of the fifteen businesses with fifty-one or more employees, the median annual cost per FTE was $12. The corresponding cost for the one hundred thirty-nine small businesses was $67 per FTE per year. In light of this, the lower bound cost per FTE is estimated to be approximately 5.6 times greater for small businesses as compared to businesses with fifty-one or more employees.
| Lower Bound – Survey Questions 14 and 15: Annual
Cost (in Dollars) to Provide Training on the Prevention of
Heat-Related Illness (Employers Reporting 'NO' to 14) |
||
| Small Businesses | Not Small Businesses | |
| Mean | 341 | 15 |
| Standard Error | 115 | 5 |
| Median | 67 | 12 |
| Standard Deviation | 1352 | 18 |
| Sample Variance | 1827695 | 315 |
| Kurtosis | 55 | 10 |
| Skewness | 7 | 3 |
| Range | 12480 | 73 |
| Minimum | 0 | 1 |
| Maximum | 12480 | 74 |
| Sum | 47442 | 232 |
| Count | 139 | 15 |
| Confidence Level (95.0%) | 227 | 10 |
3. REDUCING THE COST FOR SMALL BUSINESSES: The department is taking the following steps to reduce the costs of the rule on small businesses:
(1) Reduced fines for small businesses. RCW 49.17.180 addresses the civil penalties for WISHA citations. RCW 49.17.180(7) requires the department give consideration in the penalty assessment to factors including the size of the employer's business. The WAC code that spells out the specific process for penalty adjustments including employer size is WAC 296-900-14015 (see Table 5).
(2) Enhanced outreach and education to small businesses. The department will make a concerted effort to focus its education and outreach campaign on small businesses. This will include providing employers with materials, such as draft language to insert in their accident prevention plans (APPs) and free HRI training materials and train-the-trainer meetings.
4. SMALL BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT IN THE RULE-MAKING PROCESS: The department has made a considerable effort to involve small businesses and their representative agencies at various points in the rule-making process, beginning in 2005. Most recently, the department held stakeholder meetings in Tumwater, Bellevue, Yakima, and Spokane to hear from the business community, many of whom were small businesses. There was also a public comment period around this time. In addition, L&I recently held two separate stakeholder meetings in Tumwater in November 2007.
5. INDUSTRIES LIKELY TO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULE: Table A-1 in the appendix of this SBEIS includes a list of all the industries included in the sampling frame for the cost survey. Some of these industries, and some businesses within industries, will not have outdoor workers and thus will not be required to comply with the draft proposed HRI rule. Moreover, the rule was revised after the survey was conducted such that employees with only incidental exposure to outdoor HRI hazards are not covered by this rule. As a result, this list likely overstates the scope of the rule with respect to covered industries.
6. NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED OR LOST: The department does not anticipate that any jobs will be created or lost as a result of compliance with the proposed HRI rule. This is because the requirements are such that employers will be able to meet them using existing staff and without the need to hire additional staff. Similarly, there is no reason to suspect that employers would need to dismiss employees as a result of the draft proposed HRI rule.
For a copy of the appendices, contact L&I or go to the web site www.lni.wa.gov.
| 1 | See Table IIb on p. 6 of Bonauto, et al. (2007) for a list of HRI claims in Washington state from 1995-2005 broken out by industry sector at the 6-digit NAICS level. |
| 2 | Note that ICD refers to the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization. |
| 3 | n = [p*q]/[.05/1.96]2. |
| 4 | Sample size for known population size calculated using an online sample size calculator available at the following web site: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm. |
| 5 | Reasons for the relatively low response to the regulatory cost surveys are unknown; however, L&I assumes that some or all of the following factors may be at play: (1) Employers may not see any clear benefit to participating, (2) due to the ever-changing nature of businesses and the potential lag time in updating our administrative data base, samples may include incorrect and outdated contact information, and (3) despite L&I's assurances to the contrary, employers may fear that the information they provide will be used against them in the form of citations, fines, or other enforcement measures. |
| 6 | Surveys were sent to the physical location address rather than the quarterly reporting address, the latter of which is used for accounting purposes. This was done to ensure that the person best able to answer questions pertaining to a particular site's costs would be the person receiving the survey. However, this created some problems in survey delivery. For example, some businesses appear to use a P.O. box for mailing and do not receive mail at their physical location. Some of these businesses did not receive the survey but should have. |
| 7 | An emergency rule pertaining to heat-related illness in the outdoor environment was adopted on June 5, 2007, and became effective June 18, 2007. |
| 8 | This is approximate and quite likely an underestimate. Some businesses contacted the department to say they received the postcard but not the survey and L&I resent them the survey. Presumably some employers received the postcard but not the survey and did not contact the department to request the survey. |
| 9 | Note the distinction in the definition of "industry" in the sampling frame as compared to the survey responses. Industry in the case of the sampling frame refers to the 2-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) industry sector. Industry in the case of the survey responses means the industry category presented on the survey that the respondent felt best described their firm's operations. Respondents may not have classified their businesses in the way that L&I employees trained in assigning NAICS codes to businesses may have, so there will likely be some natural discrepancy between the sampling frame and the surveys. For example, a disproportionate number of respondents classified themselves as "other," but upon reading the description they provided, it was apparent they should have been classified as another industry in the list provided to them. |
| 10 | Note that the section of the survey that asked about training costs was structured differently than the other sections in that there was not an opportunity to answer that it would cost less, the same, or more. Rather, respondents were asked to estimate current costs if they were already providing HRI training. In addition, all respondents were asked to estimate future costs. The different structure of this question may explain why it, unlike the other questions, resulted in a median lower bound cost greater than $0 for both small and nonsmall businesses. |
A copy of the statement may be obtained by contacting Jamie Scibelli, P.O. Box 44620, Olympia, WA 98504-4620, phone (360) 902-4568, fax (360) 902-5619, e-mail scij235@lni.wa.gov.
A cost-benefit analysis is required under RCW 34.05.328. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis may be obtained by contacting Jamie Scibelli, P.O. Box 44620, Olympia, WA 98504-4620, phone (360) 902-4568, fax (360) 902-5619, e-mail scij235@lni.wa.gov.
March 19, 2008
Judy Schurke
Director
OTS-9690.9
NEW SECTION
WAC 296-62-095
Heat-related illness in the outdoor
environment.
[]
(2) The requirements of WAC 296-62-09540, Drinking water, and 296-62-09550, Responding to signs and symptoms of heat-related illness, apply to outdoor work environments where employees are or may be exposed to a condition listed in Table 1.
Table 1
To determine the temperature trigger, select the type of clothing or PPE the employee is wearing and whether the work is being performed in the direct sun or the shade.
| Work in direct sun | Work in shade | |
| Work clothes | 89°F | 96°F |
| Double-layer woven clothes (e.g., cotton coveralls on top of summer clothes) | 77°F | 87°F |
| Vapor barrier (e.g., encapsulating suit or turn out gear) | 52°F | 62°F |
| Note: | The trigger temperatures in Table 1 are based on a dew point of 50°F and were developed for use by the state of Washington. |
(4) WAC 296-62-095 through 296-62-09560 supplements industry-specific standards with related requirements. Where the requirements under these sections provide more specific or greater protection than the industry-specific standards, the employer shall comply with the requirements under these sections.
[]
(2) Drinking water means potable water. Water packaged as a consumer product is acceptable.
(3) Environmental factors for heat-related illness means working conditions that increase the susceptibility for heat-related illness including air temperature, relative humidity, radiant heat from the sun and other sources, conductive heat sources such as the ground, air movement, workload severity and duration, and personal protective equipment worn by employees.
(4) Heat-related illness means a medical condition resulting from the body's inability to cope with a particular heat load, and includes, but is not limited to, heat cramps, heat rash, heat exhaustion, fainting, and heat stroke.
(5) Heat-related illness hazard means when environmental factors present a condition listed in WAC 296-62-09510(2) Table 1.
(6) Incidental exposure means employees performing work activities in an outdoor environment for a total of fifteen minutes or less in a sixty minute period. This applies every hour during the work shift.
(7) Outdoor environment means an environment where work activities are conducted outside. Environments such as vehicle cabs, sheds, and tents or other structures may be considered an outdoor environment when the environmental factors are not managed by engineering controls. Construction activity is considered work in an indoor environment when the outside walls and roof are erected.
(8) Personal factors for heat-related illness means factors that affect hydration or other physiological responses to heat.
[]
(1) Identification and evaluation of temperature, humidity, and other environmental factors associated with heat-related illness;
(2) Provisions to reduce to the extent feasible the risks of heat-related illness which include the following elements:
• The provision of rest breaks as needed to reduce to the extent feasible the risks of heat-related illness; and
• Encouraging frequent consumption of water, as described in WAC 296-62-09560 (2)(e) Information and training.
(3) Procedures for responding to signs or symptoms of possible heat-related illness and accessing medical aid;
(4) Employees are responsible for monitoring their own personal factors for heat-related illness, including ensuring they consume adequate water.
[]
[]
(2) Employees showing signs or demonstrating symptoms of heat-related illness must be monitored to determine whether medical attention is necessary.
[]
(1) Employee training. Training in the following topics must be provided to all employees who may be exposed to a heat-related illness hazard.
(a) The environmental factors that contribute to the risk of heat-related illness;
(b) General awareness of personal factors that may increase susceptibility to heat illness including, but not limited to, an individual's age, degree of acclimatization, medical conditions, water consumption, alcohol consumption, caffeine consumption, nicotine use, and use of prescription and nonprescription medications that affect hydration or other physiological responses to heat;
(c) The employer's procedures for identifying, evaluating, and controlling exposure;
(d) The importance of removing personal protective equipment that increases exposure to heat-related illness hazards during all breaks when feasible;
(e) The importance of frequent consumption of small quantities of water. One quart or more over the course of an hour may be necessary when the work environment is hot and employees may be sweating more than usual in the performance of their duties;
(f) The importance of acclimatization;
(g) The different types of heat-related illness and the common signs and symptoms of heat-related illness;
(h) The importance of immediately reporting to the employer, directly or through the employee's supervisor, symptoms or signs of heat illness in themselves, or in co-workers;
(i) The employer's procedures for responding to symptoms of possible heat-related illness, including how emergency medical services will be provided should they become necessary; and
(j) The purpose and requirements of this standard.
(2) Supervisor training. Prior to supervising employees who are working in conditions that may present heat-related illness hazards, supervisors must have training on the following topics:
(a) The information required to be provided in subsection (1) of this section;
(b) The procedures the supervisor is to follow to implement the applicable provisions in this section;
(c) The procedures the supervisor is to follow when an employee exhibits signs or symptoms consistent with possible heat-related illness, including emergency response procedures;
(d) Procedures for moving employees to a place where they can be reached by an emergency medical service provider, if necessary; and
(e) How to provide clear and precise directions to the emergency medical provider who needs to find the work site.
[]