Safety agency decides not to make rules on indoor heat: employer groups oppose regulations on temperatures at workplaces.

IT'S not often that a regulatory agency takes a look at a health problem and decides not to regulate, but that's precisely what happened last month as the state Division of Occupational Safety and Health considered whether to impose indoor heat illness requirements on employers.

The drive for indoor heat regulations has started and sputtered over the years, but received a big boost two years ago when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration rushed to enact outdoor heat regulations in the wake of a string of heat-related deaths, mostly among field hands in the Central Valley. At that time, the administration also promised to look at the issue of regulating indoor environments.

But employer groups opposed the regulation effort, saying variation in indoor workplaces was so broad that crafting a "one-size-fits-all" regulation would be cumbersome and ineffective. Still, worker advocates pressed their case as several employees of a Rite Aid Corp. warehouse in Lancaster trooped up to Sacramento to argue for tougher regulations on indoor heat.

They said the temperature inside the warehouse--which had no air conditioning--regularly topped 100 degrees in the summer and argued that it led to heat exhaustion and one heat-related fatality. (A spokesman for Rite Aid said at the time that the Los Angeles County Coroner's office report indicated that the fatality was not heat related.)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The workers testified in favor of Assembly Bill 1045, by then-Assemblywoman (now U.S. Rep.) Laura Richardson, D- Long Beach. The bill requires the Division of Occupational Safety and Health to craft regulations to reduce indoor heat illness.

However, at the same time, division staff concluded the regulation wasn't needed. Division chief Len Welsh told the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board at its August meeting that in 2006 the division only investigated six cases of indoor heat illness. With such a low level of cases, Welsh said staff concluded the situation was best handled with more attention to existing worker training regulations as part of the 15-year-old Injury and Illness Prevention Program.

"The data doesn't show there is an overwhelming problem that requires a full regulation to address," division spokesman Dean Fryer said.

That news was greeted with relief from the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which had argued that a regulation was unnecessary and costly. The association said it was willing to work with the state to beef up training and heat illness prevention efforts.

But it was greeted with dismay from worker advocates. "It's unconscionable considering the situation we have in California with increased heat and more work locations in hot areas," said Fran Schreiberg, an attorney with WorkSafe, a coalition of labor, community and occupational health professionals.

Last week, Richardson's bill passed the Legislature and was sent on to the governor's office, but after the division's ruling even Schreiberg acknowledged Schwarzenegger is almost certain to veto it.