To the Members of the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board and the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the development of Virginia’s Heat Illness Prevention Standard. As a safety professional responsible for employees working in demanding indoor and outdoor conditions, I support the Commonwealth’s goal of preventing heat-related illnesses and injuries. Heat illness is a serious hazard, and employers should have reasonable programs in place to train employees, provide drinking water, allow employees to take a break, address acclimatization, and respond quickly when symptoms appear.

At the same time, the final rule must be practical and flexible enough to work across Virginia’s many industries. Road construction crews, manufacturing facilities, warehouses, restaurant kitchens, landscaping operations, roofing contractors, utility crews, and climate-controlled offices do not experience heat in the same way. Workload, exposure duration, direct sunlight, humidity, radiant heat, air movement, clothing, personal protective equipment, access to cooling, and the ability to stop or rotate work all affect the actual risk. A single rigid procedure will not fit every workplace and may create conflicts with other hazards or operating requirements.

I encourage the Board to adopt a performance-based standard that establishes clear minimum responsibilities but allows employers to choose effective controls for their particular operations. Flexibility should not mean reduced protection. Employers should still be accountable for identifying heat hazards, planning for hot conditions, providing readily available drinking water, establishing practical opportunities for rest and cooling, protecting new and returning employees while they acclimatize, training workers and supervisors, and maintaining emergency response procedures.

The temperature thresholds must also be understandable and usable in the field. The earlier 80°F concept is not a meaningful indicator of high heat in Virginia; it is a routine temperature for much of the year. Setting the initial trigger that low would place employers under continuous requirements during normal summer conditions and would not help supervisors distinguish ordinary heat from conditions requiring increased precautions. The standard should use the heat index because it reflects both temperature and humidity, is familiar to the public, and is readily available through ordinary weather services without specialized instruments, technical calculations, or added expense.

A practical two-tier framework could require basic heat precautions when the heat index reaches approximately 90°F and enhanced high-heat procedures when it reaches approximately 100°F, while allowing employers to act sooner when direct sun, strenuous work, hot equipment or surfaces, heavy clothing, or personal protective equipment increases the hazard. National Weather Service heat advisories and warnings should also prompt heightened planning and review. For indoor operations, employers should be allowed to use a representative temperature and humidity reading for the actual work area rather than an outdoor forecast that may not reflect indoor conditions.

The standard should not require specialized heat-monitoring equipment or a measurement system that ordinary supervisors cannot easily understand and apply. Many small employers do not have industrial hygienists, specialized instruments, or the resources to purchase and maintain additional equipment. A rule cannot protect workers if the people expected to use it cannot reasonably determine when it applies. Virginia should favor a straightforward system that employers of every size can implement consistently.

Employee education should be one of the strongest parts of the standard. Most proposals focus almost entirely on what the employer must provide, but heat illness prevention also requires informed employee participation. Training should explain hydration before, during, and after work; the importance of eating regular meals; the effects of alcohol and caffeine, certain medications, illness, lack of sleep, and physical condition; acclimatization; early symptoms; the buddy system; and the need to report symptoms immediately rather than trying to work through them.

Heat illness prevention should be treated as a shared responsibility. Employers must provide the protections, training, supervision, and response procedures required by the standard. Employees should be expected to use the water and recovery opportunities provided, follow the employer’s heat-safety procedures, monitor themselves and coworkers, report symptoms promptly, and begin work adequately hydrated when reasonably possible. This does not remove or reduce the employer’s responsibility. It recognizes the practical fact that a worker who begins a strenuous shift already dehydrated may not be able to drink enough during the workday to catch up with the body’s needs.

DOLI can support compliance by developing free, plain-language training materials that employers can adapt to their operations. The rule should encourage employees to speak up early without retaliation and should require supervisors to respond appropriately when symptoms are reported or observed. Early communication can prevent a manageable condition from becoming a medical emergency.

Rest and cooling requirements should likewise focus on effective outcomes rather than a fixed schedule that applies regardless of circumstances. Employers should be able to adjust work pace, rotate employees, schedule heavier work earlier, provide shaded or cooled recovery areas, use vehicles or nearby climate-controlled spaces when appropriate, and time breaks around the work and other hazards. Employees showing signs or symptoms must always be allowed to stop work and recover, and suspected heat stroke must be treated as an emergency.

Virginia can create a standard that provides meaningful protection without imposing a costly or unworkable one-size-fits-all system. I respectfully urge the Board and DOLI to adopt clear minimum protections, practical heat-index thresholds suited to Virginia, strong employee and supervisor education, recognition of employee participation, and enough flexibility for employers to address the actual hazards present in their industries and worksites. A standard that workers and supervisors can understand and use every day will do more to prevent heat illness than one built around complicated measurements or rigid procedures.

Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully submitted,