Attendees

Committee Members

Paul Ricker, State Compensation Insurance Fund
J. Felix De La Torre, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation
Nancy Moorhouse, Teichert Construction / Associated General Contractors of California
Dan Napier, DNA Industrial Hygiene
Marianne Brown, UCLA LOSH Program
Samantha Turner, Shea Homes
Kevin Lancaster, J.D., William L. Veen Law Offices
Jim Cone, M.D., Calif. Dept. of Health Services
Jerry Morris, Communication Workers of America
Fran Schreiberg, J.D., WORKSAFE
Henry Rodriguez, Laborers International Union
Otto Zahn, Computer Science Corp.
Richard Warner, Southern California Edison
Bob Hamilton, Associated General Contractors
Mike Wurm, Quest Technologies
Bo Bradley, HMH, Inc. / Associated General Contractors of California
Mike Doerring, DOSH
Don Holler, Intl. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47
John Vocke, Pacific Gas & Electric
Regina White, Pacific Gas & Electric

Interested Parties

Francis Dukes-Dobos, M.D., University of South Florida
Selma Benjamin, AFSCME (Retiree, Chapter 36)
Jeanette Landucci, Nursing Graduate Student, UCSF
Sherry Baron, M.D., California Dept. of Health Services
Kevin Thompson, Cal/OSHA Reporter
Scott Robinson, AB M, Inc. / California Industrial Hygiene Council
Mike Wasserman, City of Sacramento
Richard Kelly, Lawrence Livermore Labs

Cal/OSHA

John Howard, M.D., J.D., DOSH (A.M. only) Gene Murphy, DOSH
Len Welsh, J.D., DOSH (A.M. only) Robert Erickson, DOSH
Bob Nakamura, DOSH Jerry Neisler, DOSH
Bob Barish, DOSH Walter Graze, DOSH
William Estakhri, DOSH Russell Umbraco, DOSH
Steve Smith, Cal/OSHA Standards Board Bruce Wallace, DOSH
 

Minutes

Bob Barish, Senior Industrial Hygienist in the Research and Standards Development Unit of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), opened the meeting at 10 a.m.

Dr. John Howard, Chief of DOSH provided opening remarks. Dr. Howard acknowledged that developing new Cal/OSHA regulations was usually a long and sometimes difficult process. He felt it could be especially complex for heat stress as the risk of injury or illness could be greatly affected by individual employee susceptibility. Dr. Howard thanked the committee for their willingness to participate in this undertaking.

After a brief review of the agenda, committee members, interested parties, and Cal/OSHA personnel introduced themselves. Bob Barish introduced Dr. Francis Dukes-Dobos who would provide an overview presentation on heat stress.

Presentation by Steve Smith

Steve C. Smith, Senior Industrial Hygienist with the Cal/OSHA Standards Board, gave an overview of the advisory committee process and how it fit into the larger rulemaking process of the Cal/OSHA Standards Board. He also provided a brief history of the petition from AFSCME Local 36, which led to formation of the committee to consider a regulation on heat stress.

Presentation by Dr. Francis Dukes-Dobos

Dr. Francis Dukes-Dobos of the University of South Florida, and Chief of the Ergonomics and Work Physiology Branch of NIOSH from 1972 to 1980, then gave a 90-minute presentation entitled "Rationale for Instituting Heat Stress Management Programs." This was an overview of the hazard of heat stress, the range of heat-related illnesses, risk factors, control measures, and other technical issues. [Overheads from Dr. Dukes-Dobosí presentation were distributed with hard copy of these minutes.]

In concluding his presentation Dr. Dukes-Dobos acknowledged the difficulty of the task the committee would face in using the information he presented, as well as that from other sources, to arrive at an acceptable regulatory proposal. However, he urged the committee to make the choices necessary to provide workers with feasible protection from the hazards of heat stress.

Discussion of DOSH investigations

After lunch Mike Doerring, Industrial Hygienist in the DOSH District Office in San Diego discussed several heat stress fatalities he had investigated in the last 5 years. Mike felt recurrent patterns in these cases appeared to be new or returning employees lacking acclimatization, and the availability of drinking water but lack of emphasis on assuring employees drank sufficient quantities to avoid heat illness. Mike also felt that occasional spells of high relative humidity might be an important factor in some cases of heat illness.

Mike felt it was important to consider some degree of personal monitoring, such as recovery heart rate, given the varying levels of individual fitness and susceptibility, which can contribute to heat illness.

Jerry Neisler, Regional Industrial Hygienist, DOSH Region III, Anaheim, echoed many of Mike Doerringís concerns. He described a personal experience using fully encapsulating suits in which recovery heart rate measurements suggested that a colleague with whom he was working might be vulnerable to heat illness. Jerry also felt that in incidents he had investigated if supervisors and workers had been aware of the symptoms of heat illness, as well as appropriate response measures, they might have been able to prevent a fatality.

Discussion of other cases

Marianne Brown of UCLA LOSH indicated her understanding of one heat stroke fatality case in which the employee had just returned to work after having the flu, and was therefore unacclimatized.

Kevin Lancaster of the William L. Veen Law Offices reported on a fatal heat stroke case he had been involved with in which the worker had apparently been unemployed immediately prior to starting work in a hot environment, and therefore was not acclimatized. In this case it appeared that water was available but the employer did not assure sufficient consumption.

Mike Doerring re-emphasized the important of assuring that sufficient water is consumed where heat stress may be a problem. Regina White of PG&E said that her companyís practice was to work actively to assure adequate water consumption under hot conditions.

Jerry Morris, Communication Workers, felt that in many heat illness cases he was aware of there was evidence of inadequate supervision. He acknowledged that members of his union will often work the entire day by themselves and so supervision on heat stress and other issues could be a problem. Mike Doerring said he had observed minimal supervision in a number of the cases he had investigated.

General discussion

Dr. Dukes-Dobos noted that underreporting of incidents is an obvious concern in assessing the extent of the problem of heat-related illness. He said that it can be hard to distinguish between heat stroke and heat induced cardiovascular incidents. Dr. Dukes-Dobos indicated that a number of scientific papers have addressed this issue

Bob Barish then asked those present if they could comment on current efforts by employers to address the risk of heat illness.

Scott Robinson with ABM Industries, and a member of the California Industrial Hygiene Council, noted that turnover and individual susceptibility both affect employersí ability to prevent heat illness. He also felt that managing the process of acclimatization could be challenging, especially for remote and minimally supervised workers.

Regina White of PG&E said that her companyís policy is to hold tailgate briefings on control of heat stress, especially when unusually hot weather is anticipated or present.

Bob Barish thought such tailgate briefings were not unusual, but wondered how often they were monitored for their effectiveness.

Bruce Wallace of DOSH suggested that a proposed standard should include an information and training element. Bob Barish said he anticipated this would be part of any proposal.

Scott Robinson and Dan Napier both reiterated concerns about the difficulty of controlling behavior of mobile and minimally supervised employees. Dan Napier wanted to know if a regulation could apply to a person on first entry into a hot vehicle. Bob Barish indicated that any proposed standard would have some element of a minimum exposure time built into it, either directly or indirectly, before employer action would be required and so it would not be expected to apply to vehicle entry alone absent some other significant exposure.

Jerry Morris, Communication Workers of America, felt that "tailgate" training alone may not be adequate to reliably prevent heat illness. He reiterated comments about workers in minimally supervised situations, saying that some of his unionís members work alone from home and rarely see a supervisor. He felt that any proposed regulation should provide for appropriate effective measures even in these less than optimal situations.

Paul Ricker of State Compensation Insurance Fund reminded the group that the Injury and Illness Prevention Program requirements in Cal/OSHAís Title 8 regulations already provided for employee training in hazards of the job. He noted that farm labor contractors may hire workers for only a day or two, which would not provide time for acclimatization. He said that in most such situations employers addressed the Injury and Illness Prevention Program requirements on the first day of work with a new employee, including training in heat stress prevention such as consumption of sufficient water. He said that in his experience working in the Bakersfied area where it is frequently over 100 ^oF in the summer, heat stress had not been a significant problem among his insureds.

Mike Doerring of DOSH felt it was important to address preventive measures during periods of unusually high heat (i.e. heat waves) and also during times, usually when humidity was elevated. He felt it was especially important that supervisors be trained in appropriate preventive measures, and also in recognition and response to signs of heat illness, especially heat stroke. He felt that employers should be given options from which to choose that will be most effective and reasonable for their particular situations.

Dr. Dukes-Dobos noted that in addition to heat illness, several studies have strongly indicated that exposure to heat stress can impact judgement, vigilance, and behavior, with negative effects on safety. He noted a study during a dam building project in the Central Valley of California, which suggested that heat exposure had a significant impact on accident rates.

Paul Ricker of State Fund said that oil companies operating in the Central Valley were studying the impact of heat and cold exposures on the occurrence of accidents.

General agreement of those present on a training and information component

Bob Barish asked if there would be objection to a regulation requiring employers to provide information and training to employees and supervisors beyond some trigger level, probably consisting of a combination of temperature, work level, and time.

Dan Napier noted that AHERA training for asbestos workers requires heat stress training.

Scott Robinson felt it would be best for a proposed regulation to emphasize training of supervisors and employees and leave out detailed requirements that could be difficult to make reasonable for all employers.

Kevin Lancaster supported a tiered approach to a regulation, which had employers taking more action only as environmental and work conditions increased the risk of heat illness.

Mike Doerring re-emphasized from his experience investigating incidents the importance of addressing heat wave situations and temperature extremes. He noted that the 1986 NIOSH Criteria Document for heat stress recommends that employers develop and implement a Heat-Alert Program to provide for increased protective measures during heat waves. The Criteria Document recommends that the program be implemented when daily maximum temperatures exceed 95 ^oF or when the daily maximum temperature exceeds 90 ^oF and is 9 ^oF or more above the maximum temperature on the preceding day. Measures recommended to be taken in such situations include postponing non-essential activities, increasing rest breaks, additional reminders to workers to frequently drink small quantities of water, a lower threshold for medical response to possible signs of heat illness, and where heat and working conditions are most severe checking of workersí oral temperature.

Bob Barish noted with interest that the trigger for implementing the Heat Alert Program in the NIOSH Criteria Document was simply dry bulb temperature, without consideration of humidity or globe temperature, thus making it relatively easy for employers to know when they needed to take action.

Rick Kelly of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory described his organizationís response to heat waves, including e-mail notices of anticipated periods of high heat to departments with potentially affected employees, and suggested preventive measures.

Richard Warner of Southern California Edison noted that exposure time would need to be included in any proposed trigger level, along with temperature and possibly other conditions.

Next meeting: January 25, 2000, Anaheim

Tuesday January 25, 2000 was agreed upon as the date for the next meeting. A number of participants suggested that this meeting be held in the Los Angeles area to encourage continued participation of the many attendees and others from that region of the state.

Bob Barish said he would try to arrange this, particularly in light of the fact that he planned to hold the third meeting in early April in Oakland to coincide with the meeting in Oakland of the Physical Agents Committee of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists April 14-16. This would facilitate possible participation in the meeting by one or more of the experts on heat stress from the Physical Agents Committee. (Note: The likely date for this third meeting has been set for Wednesday April 12, subject to discussion by the committee on January 25.)

Time and location of next meeting:

Tuesday January 25, 2000
10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
DOSH Training Room, Suite 115
2100 East Katella Avenue
Anaheim, California