Bill Overview
Title: Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to promulgate a standard that requires employers to implement certain measures for protecting workers from heat stress and related illnesses or injuries. Heat stress refers to the load of heat that a person experiences due to sources of heat or heat retention (including metabolic heat, environmental factors, and clothing or personal protective equipment) or the presence of heat in a work setting. Further, if an employer cannot reduce exposure to heat stress below hazardous levels through engineering controls (e.g., heat shields and insulation) or personal protective equipment (e.g., heat reflective clothing), the employer must implement a program that mitigates such exposure through access to appropriate hydration and cool-down spaces, acclimatization policies, and periodic paid rest breaks. Additionally, the bill establishes requirements concerning judicial review, implementation, enforcement, recordkeeping, and whistle-blower protections related to the standard. The bill also requires the Department of Labor to include questions about heat-related illness and injury in the National Agricultural Workers Survey (an employment-based, random-sample survey of U.S. crop workers that collects demographic, employment, and health information).
Sponsors: Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-27]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals exposed to occupational heat stress
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Heat stress affects individuals in various occupations, particularly in industries such as agriculture, construction, landscaping, and manufacturing, where work is often performed outdoors or in environments without climate control.
- The vulnerability to heat stress is exacerbated under changing climate conditions, which have led to an increase in global temperatures and heatwaves, affecting more people worldwide.
- Workers in developed countries such as the United States, as well as those in developing countries lacking robust occupational health policies, are at risk of heat illness and fatalities related to work conditions.
- The global workforce engaged in labor-intensive jobs, estimated by the International Labour Organization (ILO), is in the hundreds of millions.
- The legislation aims to protect the health of these individuals through regulatory mechanisms, potentially saving lives and preventing illnesses.
Reasoning
- The Asunción Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act aims to impact those working in heat-exposed conditions, primarily affecting agricultural, construction, and some manufacturing industries.
- Given the budget constraints ($70,000,000 in year 1 and $520,000,000 over 10 years), the policy will need to prioritize high-risk groups or areas where heat stress incidents are prevalent, such as southern states and regions with extreme heat patterns.
- The target population in the U.S. is estimated to be around 3,000,000 workers across various sectors prone to heat exposure.
- In the context of diverse environments—ranging from highly urbanized cities to rural areas—the policy impact will vary based on existing infrastructure for heat mitigation.
- Workers not directly impacted by high heat stress conditions will benefit indirectly through improved workplace standards and emergency preparedness measures.
Simulated Interviews
Agricultural Worker (Fresno, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I often work long hours outside in the heat, so it would be nice to have more breaks and shaded areas to cool down.
- Hydration is key. We've had talks about it, but formalizing it would help everyone.
- If this policy means fewer emergency trips due to heat, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Supervisor (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are vital, especially here in Arizona, where temperatures can soar.
- Providing cooling and hydration will help prevent dangerous situations for my crew.
- As a supervisor, it's important to ensure we comply with new standards for safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Warehouse Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With no proper cooling in the warehouse, this policy is a necessity.
- Night shifts help, but the afternoons are brutal—even indoors.
- Hopefully, this means better equipment and standards for handling heat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Landscaper (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to cool-down spaces and hydration could make a huge difference in my day-to-day work.
- Managing heat is tough when you're outside most of the time and alone.
- This policy could help standardize better practices across the industry, which is needed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're indoors, but temperatures still hit us hard during summer.
- Bringing this kind of policy to affect indoor environments is smart.
- It would help to get consistent breaks and improve conditions, especially when machines add to the heat.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Roofer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean better awareness around necessary breaks and cooling times.
- Working under extreme sun and heat exhausts us; more regulations would definitely help.
- Support for long-term exposure is crucial for health on and off the site.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Farm Supervisor (Bakersfield, California)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safer conditions for my team means a more productive and reliable workforce.
- Honestly, it's about time we make hydration and rest obligatory for everyone working outside.
- Compliance might be challenging at first, but it's worth it in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Logistics Coordinator (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Warehouse conditions vary, but heat remains a concern during summer.
- Implementing this policy could streamline our safety protocols and increase reliability.
- It's important to ensure quick adaptations to minimize disruption in operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Road Construction Worker (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Working under direct sun on asphalt is extreme, so any policy supporting safety is appreciated.
- Current cool-off routines are inconsistent, raising risks.
- This policy could push for steady improvements in working conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Event Setup Crew Leader (San Antonio, Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Events are demanding; ensuring shaded setup areas would help a lot.
- Effective regulations for heat management during event setups are lacking—this could change that.
- Crew well-being translates directly into better event outcomes, so safety measures are essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $65000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $85000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $40000000)
Key Considerations
- Administrative and compliance costs for businesses in high-risk sectors.
- Potential legal challenges during the implementation phase could delay or increase the cost of enforcement.
- There might be technological and practical challenges faced by small businesses in implementing these measures.
- The indirect benefits of improved worker health and safety might not immediately reflect in reduced costs but could yield long-term health savings.