Health and Safety Executive Board Paper No: HSE/09/87Meeting Date: 23 September 2009 FOI Status: Open Type of paper: Above the line Exemptions: Trim reference: 2009/367173

HSE REVIEW OF THE CURRENT APPROACH TO WORKPLACE TEMPERATURES

Purpose of the paper 1. The Board is invited to note the report of the review of workplace temperatures by Professor R Kemp and to consider the options presented for taking this issue forward; to provide a steer on which of these should be further developed; and to decide what advice should be provided to the Secretary of State. Background 2. There has been considerable debate on the issue of maximum temperatures in the workplace over a number of years. In early 2009, the TUC called for the case for a regulatory maximum temperature to be revisited. The TUC have called for an absolute maximum temperature of 30°C (27°C for those doing strenuous work), at which point workers should not have to work and an employer should be liable for prosecution.

3. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 lay down particular requirements for most aspects of the working environment. Regulation 7 deals specifically with the temperature in indoor workplaces and states that ‘During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable.’ However, the Regulations do not specify either maximum or minimum temperatures. The associated ACOP (Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Approved Code of Practice) provides guidance on minimum temperatures and explains: “The temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius unless much of the work involves severe physical effort in which case the temperature should be at least 13 degrees Celsius”. However, there is no guidance provided on the definition of maximum temperatures. 4. Further to TUC calls for a regulatory maximum temperature and an Early day Motion, James Purnell, the then Secretary of State, wrote on 16 January 2009 to HSE to propose that they should undertake a review of the current approach to workplace temperatures. HSE were requested to report to the Secretary of State with recommendations by 12 October 2009. 5. Professor Ray Kemp was commissioned to assist HSE with the review, which considered four questions posed by James Purnell: • whether the relevant legislation and guidance has kept pace with the

changing nature of workplaces and working patterns;

• whether there is continued justification for having minimum recommended

working temperatures but not a corresponding maximum recommendation - for those working indoors;

• whether more can be done to address the corresponding effects - including seasonal variations - on those working outdoors; and

• what can be learned about workplace temperatures in the wider 'good work' context, for example in relation to access to drinking water and other facilities in the working environment.

The review also considered the arguments for and against a maximum workplace temperature. 6. Professor Kemp studied information obtained from key European Union member states as to how workplace temperatures are managed in their countries, along with research he gathered on experiences of managing workplace temperatures in Australia. Discussions were held with stakeholders at a forum in Rose Court on 23rd July 2009. In addition, a questionnaire was distributed by HSE to a large number of stakeholders, across a wide range of sectors, to seek their views on the approach to workplace temperatures. HSE were able to raise awareness of the questionnaire on a larger scale with assistance from the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) who posted a copy on their website. Over 440 responses were received (405 via IOSH and 44 responses direct to the HSE). Argument

7. Consultation with stakeholders during the review revealed that there is no overall consensus on an effective approach to workplace temperatures. There are two differing views emerging:

i) there is a lack of clarity in current guidance which leads to inconsistencies in thermal working environments both within and between industries (60% of those that responded to the survey via IOSH). Additionally some smaller businesses are not aware of HSEs guidance on this topic (7% of respondents to the survey via IOSH were not aware);

ii) HSE guidance is sufficient (40% of those that responded to the survey via IOSH) and effective in helping them to manage any potential risk involved with workplace temperatures and implement any subsequent risk controls.

8. It is acknowledged that in certain circumstances raised temperatures in the workplace can lead to a range of health impacts including heat fatigue, heat rash, dry eye and lack of concentration however, these are not usually major health risks in themselves.

9. Professor Kemp’s report (at Annex 1) outlines a set of options for possible further action. It is intended that the report will be published on the HSE website in due course. In his report, Professor Kemp concludes that on balance, the workplace temperature issue is not one that justifies active regulatory intervention, but rather improved joint working between all parties to the issue – government, trade unions and employer representatives.

10. The scientific evidence would support this position, as temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range. Simple temperature limits would not prevent the more serious condition of heat stress from occurring and could be counterproductive from a health & safety perspective if inaction occurred below the upper limit.

11. Professor Kemp’s options are listed below for consideration. Apart from Option 0, all will require further work and development. The Board is asked to provide a steer on which of the options should be explored further, including where appropriate, with a fuller regulatory impact assessment.

Option 0: No Change: retain current approach.

Advantages:

• Supported by the scientific evidence base and strong regulatory intervention does not appear to be justified in terms of known health impacts of workplace temperatures and levels of reported incidents

Disadvantages:

• Indications that the guidance in relation to upper temperatures is not followed in some workplaces, especially SMEs, would not be addressed.

Option 1: Amend ACoP to include a maximum upper temperature limit in addition to the current lower limit Advantages:

• Provides a clear reference point for employers and employees. Disadvantages

• Costs of regulatory intervention and of ensuring compliance, which could be disproportionate to the benefits, could also lead to unnecessary work stoppages, and could lead to increased energy use to cool workplaces.

Option 2: Engage with stakeholders and amend guidance Advantages

• Support for cross-industry working to produce guidance and an associated campaign to raise awareness could target SMEs through opportunities identified during the review.

• Consistent with HSE approach for dutyholders to assess and manage own risks

• Enables key risk sectors to be targeted

• Provides opportunity to promote sharing of good practice among stakeholders

Disadvantages

• Employers may fail to take action without a clearly specified upper temperature value.

Option 3: Amend the ACoP:

Option 3(a) to include an upper temperature action level or levels Advantages:

• Avoids a “no go” limit whilst encouraging employers and employees to take action in advance of problems becoming apparent.

Disadvantages

• Potential for an action level and a maximum temperature to be viewed in the same way and it may be difficult to specify action levels for all sectors without guidance becoming overly complex and difficult to communicate

Option 3(b) to refer to an acceptable zone of thermal comfort Advantages

• Introduces a perceived upper temperature limit while maintaining an element of flexibility to allow for different working environments and consistent with a risk based approach

Disadvantages

• Arguably compromises the scientific evidence base – that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range.

• The upper value is likely to be contentious (as too high) and will require consultation with key stakeholders.

12. In addition to consideration of these options, we suggest that the Board may wish to consider a programme of activity to raise awareness and understanding of existing guidance in view of the lack of awareness amongst small firms. HSE could take action to address concerns that smaller enterprises are not aware of existing guidance and therefore do not apply the standards. We can use the results of the survey, which point towards areas where there is a lack of awareness, to target HSE resources effectively. HSE could evaluate the effect of an awareness raising campaign and use this information as part of the impact assessment process to assess the appropriateness of the above options.

Costs 13. We have attempted to estimate the costs associated with some of the options above. For example, the estimated costs associated with option 2 (which is likely to be least cost other than no change) are up to £12,000,000. This is very much a rough first estimate and includes the costs for sector specific guidance of £3.5m based on 75% of businesses spending 30 minutes familiarising themselves with guidance and costs for generic guidance of £6.6m based on 1.34m businesses taking 10 minutes to familiarise themselves with the guidance. We will of course carry out more work to refine these figures and test these assumptions and costs once we have a steer from the Board on which options to pursue.

Action 14. The Board is invited to provide a steer on the options presented and the advice that we should give to the Secretary of State in October 2009. Paper clearance 15. The Senior Management Team discussed the outcome from the review and possible way forward on 2 September 2009.

Annex 1: HSE/09/87

Workplace Temperatures Review

Report by Professor Ray Kemp August 2009

Ray Kemp Consulting Limited The Studio 55 Malthouse Way Barrington Cambridge CB22 7RR UK + 44 7803 242 868 (mobile) Email: ray@raykempconsulting.com

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 i August 2009

Executive Summary

At the request of the Secretary of State, HSE has instigated a review of the current approach to workplace temperatures and in particular the arguments for and against a maximum temperature. Ray Kemp Consulting Limited (RKCL) was engaged to support the review. At present, there is no specified upper limit for workplace temperatures and it is thought timely to review the current position. This draft report sets out the findings of the review and has been undertaken by analysis of documentary evidence and information from key stakeholders. A stakeholder forum to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of various options for the HSE was held at Rose Court, London on 23rd July 2009 and facilitated by Professor Ray Kemp. Four options in addition to a “do nothing” option have since been evaluated. It is judged that the relevant legislation remains valid, but that the associated guidance has not sufficiently kept pace with stakeholder expectations given the changing nature of workplaces and working patterns, and amendments are now required. Although there is a sound scientific justification for having minimum recommended working temperatures but not a corresponding maximum recommendation for those working indoors, it is suggested that the legislation and guidance can stay true to the scientific basis while better reflecting perceived concerns of key stakeholders. To that end it is recommended that further work is undertaken to assess whether upper temperature action levels could be specified at which employers should undertake risk assessments to determine whether and what form of action should be undertaken. These levels should be investigated with the involvement of key stakeholders with a view to specification in improved guidance, possibly supported by revisions to the wording of the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) if deemed necessary. Improved guidance can be also provided to address the corresponding effects - including seasonal variations - on those working outdoors, and this should be undertaken through joint working and tripartite discussions between government and employer and employee representatives. Of particular interest is the need to provide guidance for those working in “cab” type environments. At the same time, improved guidance concerning workplace temperatures in the wider 'good work' context, for example in relation to access to drinking water and other facilities in the working environment are best developed through shared experience within and between industrial sectors. On balance, it is suggested that the workplace temperature issue is not one that justifies active regulatory intervention but rather improved joint working between all parties to the issue – government, Trades Union and Employers. This best reflects the new HSE Strategy for the Heath & Safety of Great Britain. As a minimum, Option 2 Amend the Guidance should be pursued through joint working and tripartite discussions between government and employer and employee representatives. In addition, further consideration should be given to the practicality and regulatory impacts of implementing Options 3 or 4 whereby the wording of the ACoP is amended to ensure that employers follow the associated guidance. It is clear that a focus on effective communication and dissemination of good practice advice is needed and should form a major part of any revised approach.

Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1 Introduction 1 2 Approach 1

2.1 Information Gathering 1 2.2 Stakeholder Forum 2 2.3 Reporting 2

3 The Current HSE Approach to the Management of Workplace Temperatures 2 3.1 Current arrangements for the management of temperatures in the workplace 2 3.2 Alternative Perspectives 4 3.3 Summary 4

4 National Approaches for Workplace Temperatures Management 5 5 HSE Strategy for the Health and Safety of Great Britain 6 6 Issues and Options 7

6.0 Option 0: No Change: Retain the Current Approach 7 6.1 Option 1: Amend ACoP to Include a Maximum Upper Temperature Limit 8 6.2 Option 2: Amend the Guidance Only and Engage with Stakeholders 8 6.3 Option 3: Amend ACoP to Include an Upper Temperature Action Level 9 6.4 Option 4: Amend ACoP to Refer to an Acceptable Zone of Thermal Comfort 10 Table 6.1. HSE Review of Workplace Temperatures: Overview of Options 12

7 Conclusions and Recommendations 13 Table 7.1. Summary advantages and disadvantages of setting a recommended maximum workplace temperature 14

8 References 15 8.1 Sources of Information 15 8.2 Links 15

APPENDIX 1 Workplace Temperatures Questionnaire – list of respondents 17 APPENDIX 2 Agenda for Stakeholder Forum 19 APPENDIX 3 Stakeholder Forum: List of Attendees 19 APPENDIX 4 Survey of National Approaches to Working Temperatures 22

1.11.4.1101RKCL/HSE Ref. August 2009

Working Temperatures Review Draft Report

1 Introduction

Ray Kemp Consulting Ltd. (RKCL) was instructed by HSE to undertake an independent review of the current approach to workplace temperatures. This draft report sets out the background to and findings of the review, and has been undertaken by analysis of documentary evidence and dialogue with key stakeholders. Background

At the request of the Secretary of State, HSE have instigated a review of the current approach to workplace temperatures. At present, there is no specified upper limit for workplace temperatures and it is thought timely to review the current position. The review considers the reasons for and against a maximum workplace temperature - including in particular: • whether the relevant legislation and guidance has kept pace with the changing nature

of workplaces and working patterns; • whether there is continued justification for having minimum recommended working

temperatures but not a corresponding maximum recommendation - for those working indoors;

• whether more can be done to address the corresponding effects - including seasonal variations - on those working outdoors; and

• what can be learned about workplace temperatures in the wider 'good work' context, for example in relation to access to drinking water and other facilities in the working environment.

The review considers the lessons learned and approaches adopted in a representative group of other countries with similar industrial and working practices and with experience of high workplace temperatures due to environmental factors such as climate conditions.

The review has sought to identify the concerns of, and engage openly with all key stakeholders, in particular, both trades union and employer organisations. A national stakeholder forum on workplace temperatures was held at Rose Court, London on 23 July 2009.

2 Approach

The methodological approach taken during this review is outlined in the following section. 2.1 Information Gathering

A desk top review of relevant documentation has been undertaken (see Section 8). In addition, HSE and RKCL have contacted Health and Safety regulators and relevant stakeholders in a number of other countries to learn about their experience and approaches.

Discussions were held with a number of Trades Union and Employer Organisations representing a wide range of workplace environments, to elicit their views on the four

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 1 August 2009

issues identified above. A questionnaire was distributed by HSE to the list of organisations included as Appendix 1. In addition, the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) posted the questionnaire on their website. Over 440 responses were received and analysed by IOSH.

2.2 Stakeholder Forum

A National Stakeholder Forum was held on 23 July 2009 at Rose Court, Southwark Bridge, London to discuss workplace temperature issues. The Agenda for that meeting is attached as Appendix 2 and a list of attendees is included as Appendix 3.

The key issues and arguments raised at the Forum have been considered in preparing this report.

2.3 Reporting

This draft report takes account of the information gathering and stakeholder engagement aspects, and presents conclusions and recommendations for consideration by HSE.

3 The Current HSE Approach to the Management of Workplace Temperatures

3.1 Current arrangements for the management of temperatures in the workplace

The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 lay down particular requirements for most aspects of the working environment. Regulation 7 deals specifically with the temperature in indoor workplaces and states that:

‘During working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings shall be reasonable.’

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19923004_en_2.htm#mdiv7

However, the application of the regulation depends on the nature of the workplace, for example conditions will differ between a bakery, a cold store, an office, and a warehouse. The associated Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) ( Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Approved Code of Practice[1] ) therefore goes on to explain:

‘The temperature in workrooms should provide reasonable comfort without the need for special clothing. Where such a temperature is impractical because of hot or cold processes, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a temperature which is as close as possible to comfortable. 'Workroom' means a room where people normally work for more than short periods.

The temperature in workrooms should normally be at least 16 degrees Celsius unless much of the work involves severe physical effort in which case the temperature should be at least 13 degrees Celsius. These temperatures may not, however, ensure reasonable comfort, depending on other factors such as air movement and relative humidity.’

It is noted that a corresponding maximum temperature for the workplace is not given. Instead, the current guidance suggests that where the temperature in a workroom would

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 2 August 2009

otherwise be uncomfortably high, for example because of hot processes or the design of the building, all reasonable steps should be taken to achieve a reasonably comfortable temperature, for example by:

• insulating hot plants or pipes;

• providing air-cooling plant;

• shading windows;

• siting workstations away from places subject to radiant heat.

Where a reasonably comfortable temperature cannot be achieved throughout a workroom, local cooling should be provided. In extremely hot weather fans and increased ventilation may be used instead of local cooling.

Where, despite the provision of local cooling, workers are exposed to temperatures which do not give reasonable comfort, suitable protective clothing and rest facilities should be provided. Where practical there should be systems of work (for example, task rotation) to ensure that the length of time for which individual workers are exposed to uncomfortable temperatures is limited.

It is understood that HSE previously defined thermal comfort in the workplace, as: 'An acceptable zone of thermal comfort for most people in the UK lies roughly between 13°C (56°F) and 30°C (86°F), with acceptable temperatures for more strenuous work activities concentrated towards the bottom end of the range, and more sedentary activities towards the higher end.' However, this range is not referred to in the ACOP or general guidance.

The current approach recognises that what is an acceptable working temperature will differ according to a wide range of factors including individuals’ perceptions and physiology, the provision of a good work environment, and whether the temperature is permanent or temporary due to unusual weather conditions, for example. Key factors that affect thermal comfort include:

• air temperature

• relative humidity

• air flow / movement

• radiant heat sources

• clothing

• work rate

• acclimatisation

The interaction between these factors is now well understood scientifically (Bass, 1963; Gisolfi 1987; ISO 7243; ISO 7933; ISO 8996; Parsons 2002;) and there is a general consensus that controlling temperature alone is inappropriate.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 3 August 2009

Furthermore, it is difficult to set an “intolerable level” because some work necessarily involves exposure to high heat sources which can be managed effectively through protective measures, working procedures, training and monitoring. Setting a specific upper limit is thought to be counter-productive and potentially injurious to worker health and safety because heat stress can occur at lower than the specified maximum temperature and both employers and employees would be discouraged from taking action if required well before any such upper limit were met.

The current approach is therefore risk based to allow for variations between different types of work environment and enable employers and employees to take an informed, responsible approach to the issue. The first step in this approach should occur when the percentage of workers complaining about thermal discomfort exceeds the recommended figure in the table in Step 1 of the Five steps to risk assessment[2], HSE recommends that an employer should carry out a thermal comfort risk assessment, and act on the results of that assessment.

3.2 Alternative Perspectives

The main criticism of the current approach has been that it is inconsistent to specify a lower temperature limit in the ACoP but not an upper limit. It is argued that the lower limit has not become an “absolute limit” and work does take place at even lower temperatures given certain precautions. The same flexibility is felt to be likely to be the case for warm working environments but the lack of an upper limit is said to lead to a lack of concern among employers and the disempowerment of employees when working environments become uncomfortably hot. An additional criticism is that the lack of clarity in the ACoP leads to major inconsistencies in thermal working environments both within and between industries. This inconsistency is said to arise because employers and employees alike have no clear reference point and no clear best practice guidance. Older building stock, temporary weather circumstances and costs of capital investment to reduce temperatures are said to militate against effective and timely action to improve conditions. However, while it is clear that raised temperatures in the workplace can lead to a range of unwelcome health impacts including heat fatigue and heat rash, dry eye, and lack of concentration, these are not major health risks in themselves. While there appears to be an ongoing issue in some sectors, this review did not uncover overwhelming support for setting an upper limit. It appears that the increased prevalence of (heat generating) IT equipment, open plan office working, changing building standards and an awareness of greater seasonal variations in temperature, has led to the perception that working conditions have changed in recent years and as a consequence, workplace temperature has become more of an issue. 3.3 Summary

It is important to distinguish between “temperature”, “thermal comfort” and “heat stress”.

The current ACoP does not specify an upper limit for workplace temperatures in order to achieve thermal comfort, because thermal comfort depends upon a number of factors other than just temperature. The guidance draws attention to the contributory factors

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 4 August 2009

and to the steps that may be taken to ensure that a thermally comfortable working environment can be achieved under most circumstances.

The scientific basis is clear: temperature is an important consideration but it is not sufficient of itself to guarantee thermal comfort – in other words setting a specific temperature does not equate to thermal comfort.

Similarly, a distinction needs to be drawn between temperature and the important issue of “heat stress”. Setting an upper limit for temperature in the workplace would not prevent heat stress from occurring and could be counterproductive from a health & safety perspective if heat stress factors were overlooked below the new upper limit.

In contrast, critics of the current approach argue there is a need for clarity in the regulations by setting a specific upper temperature at which action is required of an employer.

These seemingly opposed positions are not mutually exclusive however, because a “trigger value” or “action level” could be envisaged, possibly for a range of different working circumstances, at which action to address any discomfort would be required. That action could be an initial risk assessment or practical steps to improve comfort through measures such as provision of local cooling, additional drinking water, relaxation of dress codes etc.

This approach has been under discussion since 2003 but the complexities of developing a practical method are understood to have been a barrier to progress. Nevertheless, real interest in the idea of action levels for different sectors and circumstances was again expressed at the recent Stakeholder Forum on working temperatures and further investigation on the practicality of such an approach is deemed worthy of further investigation.

4 National Approaches for Workplace Temperatures Management

A desk top review of national approaches to the management of workplace temperatures has been undertaken. In addition, HSE asked UK Focal Point to collate responses from European Union member states to a request for information on their national approaches to setting upper temperature limits in the workplace. The following table presents a brief summary of national approaches to the management of workplace temperatures surveyed for this review. For more information see Appendix 4. Table 4.1 Summary of National Approaches to the Management of Workplace Temperatures.

Country Maximum ° C Comments

Australia None Specified Several sources of excellent guidance on practical measures to maintain thermal comfort in both indoor and outdoor environments.

Austria 25° C If air conditioning system in place; otherwise ALARA

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 5 August 2009

Canada None Specified Good practical guidance available.

Germany None Specified Technical guidance gives 26° C for normal workplaces, but higher permitted if hot summer day

New buildings and Federal Gvt. buildings without air conditioning allows upto 30° C

Holland 30 - 23° C PMV Index (Complex assessment)

Hungary 27 - 31° C Refers to EU Directive 89/654/EEC.

Ireland None Specified Refers Thermal Comfort

Slovenia 28° C Except in “hot workrooms”

Spain 25 - 27° C Refers to EU Directive 89/654/EEC.

Sweden 24/26° C Refers ISO 7234:1989

The European Directive of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace states simply that room temperature in workplaces “must be adequate for human beings, having regard to the working methods being used and the physical demands placed on the workers.” (EU Directive 89/654/EEC s.7.1).

It can be seen that there is no overall international consensus on what a maximum working temperature might be and there is general recognition that different working environments will have different levels of working temperature that is deemed appropriate.

There is international support for a risk based approach to thermal comfort supported by practical guidance in the form of information sheets, web sites, check lists, and guidance documents. This is particularly the case in Australia and in Canada where climate conditions in the different states have required a flexible, practical and pragmatic approach to addressing thermal comfort in both indoor and outdoor environments.

5 HSE Strategy for the Health and Safety of Great Britain

The new HSE Board’s Strategy for the Health and Safety of Great Britain (see “The Health and Safety of Great Britain \\ Be part of the solution” HSE 2009) focuses on the prevention of death, injury and ill health to those at work and those affected by work activities. However, there is also a wider perspective that “…health and safety is integral to the wider agenda aimed at protecting people from harm and thereby benefiting not just the individual but society as a whole”. The strategy does not promote active regulatory intervention but “...an acknowledged need for a balance in managing the interfaces between health and safety and other law and also between the HSE and other regulators”. The new HSE Strategy supports an approach which promotes creating healthier, safer workplaces. Two goals are identified:

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 6 August 2009

• To specifically target key health issues and to identify and work with those bodies best placed to bring about a reduction in the number of cases of work related ill health; and

• To set priorities and, within those priorities, to identify which activities, their length and scale, deliver a significant reduction in the rate and number of deaths and incidents.

Valid strategies for risk management promote the reduction of administrative burdens upon business, an emphasis upon co-operation and joined up thinking between government departments, and the promotion of personal responsibility among workers and employers for addressing their day-to-day health and well-being. This approach to risk management is particularly appropriate where strong regulatory intervention cannot be justified and where there is potential for real added value in terms of safety benefits by raising awareness and encouraging co-operation between industry, government and stakeholders.

6 Issues and Options

In light of the above, the following section outlines the key issues that arise and potential options to support the implementation of a renewed HSE strategy for workplace temperatures management.

The following potential strategies have been identified and are considered to be options worthy of further consideration and comparison. A summary is provided in table 6.1. 6.0 Option 0: No Change: Retain the Current Approach

The first potential strategy to consider is whether there is any justification to change the current approach as described in section 3.1 above. The current approach reflects the new HSE Strategy in that strong regulatory intervention does not appear to be justified in terms of the known health impacts of workplace temperatures. HSE data, including the RIDDOR evidence base, does not suggest that elevated temperatures in the workplace present a significant health & safety issue. Rather, seasonal variations appear to provoke temporary increases in complaints about discomfort in some workplaces and there appear to be particular on-going issues in some areas, such as in parts of the baking industry and in some closed cab environments. While these complaints should not be underestimated, the established science knowledge base makes clear that the solution does not lie in reducing temperature alone but in addressing a number of inter-related environmental factors such as air flow, humidity, radiant heat, shade, and also working practices such as rest periods, access to drinking water and dress codes. Nevertheless, there have been several persistent calls for change. A Trades Union view is that a maximum temperature would provide clear direction to employers when action should be taken, supported by the threat of regulatory intervention. In contrast, many employers see no need for an upper limit and commonly take action to improve working conditions when ambient temperatures increase. It seems reasonable to conclude that there is a lack of both an understanding of the issues and an awareness of what reasonable steps should be taken to address them, despite recent improvements to the HSE web site and associated guidance. Option 0 No Change does not appear to be a supportable option since the effectiveness of the current approach has been called into question.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 7 August 2009

6.1 Option 1: Amend ACoP to Include a Maximum Upper Temperature Limit

Amending the ACoP to introduce a strict upper temperature limit is an option that responds to the TUC position that high temperature is a significant health issue and there is a need for both a maximum temperature, and enforcement action against employers who allow their workers to suffer from having to work in hot workplaces. The TUC argues that, without a specific maximum figure, the current regulations are impossible to enforce unless a worker is seriously injured or killed by heat stress. The TUC seeks the introduction of an action level set at 24° with strict lower (16 or 13°) and upper (30 or 27°) temperature limits, adjusted according whether strenuous work is undertaken. At this maximum temperature, the TUC argues that workers should not have to work and an employer should be liable for prosecution. It is stressed that this is intended as an absolute maximum rather than an indication that regular indoor work at just below 30°C would be acceptable. The difficulty with this position is that it is not supported by the scientific evidence base because temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range. In addition, there is a risk that setting a simplistic upper limit could provide a false sense of safety. Simple temperature limits would not prevent the more serious condition of heat stress from occurring and could be counterproductive from a health & safety perspective if inaction occurred below the upper limit. Given other priorities within HSE and the apparent lack of major health risks, a change to a more interventionist approach with strict enforcement does not appear to sit well with the New HSE Strategy. Although it is clear that high temperatures can be a cause for concern, strict regulation would have to demonstrate clear cost effectiveness in terms of risk reduction. The costs of regulatory intervention and of ensuring compliance could be disproportionate to the benefits. Several employers have pointed out that significant investment in workplace cooling / air conditioning equipment in older buildings would not be economically viable and would probably be in conflict with governmental commitments to reduce environmental impacts of energy use. To pursue this option, a full regulatory impact assessment would be required to ensure no unnecessary burden on employers. Setting an absolute maximum temperature could lead to work stoppages when conditions are temporarily uncomfortable but tolerable if employers and employees work together to find ways of ameliorating the effects such as by providing access to drinking water, relaxing dress codes, and increasing rest periods. Amending the ACoP to introduce a strict upper temperature limit does not appear to be justified on scientific, regulatory or socio-economic grounds.

6.2 Option 2: Amend the Guidance Only and Engage with Stakeholders

To the extent that some employers are reportedly failing to address workplace temperature issues, there is a strong case to continue with current ACOP but amend the associated guidance supported with a proactive information campaign. This option is more consistent with the new HSE Strategy and is arguably proportionate to the identified issues and the evidential level of risk.

This option is consistent with the current scientific position regarding workplace comfort and so does not require legislative change. However, this option does recognise that

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 8 August 2009

there is a gap between what is reasonably expected of employers in the current guidance and what some employers are perceived to be providing.

Similarly, it has been pointed out that some sectors are constrained in what can be done to address workplace temperatures because of practical considerations or other regulatory requirements. Reducing indoor temperatures in summer by opening windows in banks is often impractical while food hygiene standards require careful control over ventilation in the food processing industry.

Nevertheless, the recent stakeholder forum indicated that there is some appetite for within industry and cross-industry working on such an approach in order to improve best practice guidance. In particular, the possibility of identifying clearer action levels for different sectors of industry was felt to be a potentially useful avenue to pursue.

An associated campaign to define best practice and raise awareness could target key sectors such as the baking industry and SMEs where particular problems have been identified. This option will require a commitment from government to support joint working with trades union and employer organisations in order effect the desired improvements.

6.3 Option 3: Amend ACoP to Include an Upper Temperature Action Level

An alternative option is to amend the ACoP to refer to an “action level”, or “levels” targeted at specific working environments / sectors, at which employers would be required to undertake a risk assessment and act on the results.

This approach seeks to respond to expressed stakeholder concerns while avoiding a “no go” limit and encouraging employers and employees to take action in advance of problems becoming apparent. This approach would only be acceptable from a health & safety perspective if a risk assessment and mitigation plan were required to be undertaken, rather than leading to work stoppage or an immediate reduction in workplace temperature.

This more targeted approach would need to be supported with amended guidance possibly for different sectors as for Option 2 above. Given that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range, the ACoP and associated guidance would require careful re-drafting to avoid confusion and simplistic interpretation.

This is not a simple task. It may be difficult to specify a single action level or indeed different action levels for relevant sectors in the ACoP, and has the potential to become overly complex and difficult to communicate effectively. In particular, there is potential to mistakenly view an action level and a maximum temperature in the same way without very careful explanation and provision of supplementary guidance.

Interestingly, many of those employers who typically deal with elevated temperatures in the workplace in order to avoid the more serious risk of heat stress – in the glass manufacture and smelting industries for example, have indicated that setting such action levels would not necessarily pose a problem. The burden would appear to be likely to fall mainly on the public sector and on SMEs in the private sector where there is a reduced level of awareness. As noted above, introducing additional regulation does not appear to sit well within the new HSE Strategy. While a risk-based approach that targets more effective workplace RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 9 August 2009

temperature management appears sensible, it would require a better assessment methodology than appears to be available at present, and would require very careful dissemination.

6.4 Option 4: Amend ACoP to Refer to an Acceptable Zone of Thermal Comfort

A final option is to amend the ACoP to include wording previously employed by HSE and support this with new information campaign and supplementary guidance as proposed in Options 2 and 3 above. Previous wording used by the HSE stated:

'An acceptable zone of thermal comfort for most people in the UK lies roughly between 13°C (56°F) and 30°C (86°F), with acceptable temperatures for more strenuous work activities concentrated towards the bottom end of the range, and more sedentary activities towards the higher end.' This effectively introduces a perceived upper temperature while maintaining an element of flexibility to allow for different working environments. If supported with effective guidance this remains consistent with a risk based approach.

However, the wording arguably compromises the scientific evidence base – that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range - and could be said to be misleading. In addition, the upper value (30°) is likely to be contentious (as too high) and will require further consultation with key stakeholders.

Nevertheless, amending the ACoP in this way may be an acceptable compromise if the associated guidance is developed and disseminated as for the previous option, and a careful regulatory impact assessment confirms that the costs of regulatory intervention and of ensuring compliance are not disproportionate to the benefits. Figure 6.4 provides an indication of how this approach might be presented.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 10 August 2009

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 11 August

Figure 6.4 Acceptable working temperatures

24°

13°

27°

16°

30° Thermal Risk Assessment:

• Working environment

• Type of Work

• Humidity

• Air flow

• PPE required?

• etc

Generally Acceptable Zone

Tolerable Upper Zone:

Assess risk and implement reasonable

solutions

Tolerable Lower Zone:

Assess risk and implement simple

solutionsJustification

required

Justification required

2009

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 12 August 2009

Table 6.1. HSE Review of Workplace Temperatures: Overview of Options

Option Description Advantages Disadvantages

0. No Change: Retain Current Approach

Maintain the status quo. No upper limit specified; ACOP supported by web-based and documentary guidance.

• The current approach is soundly based in science. • Strong regulatory intervention does not appear to be justified

in terms of the known health impacts of workplace temperatures.

• A majority of employers feel that the guidance is sufficient.

• There are complaints that the guidance in relation to upper temperatures is not followed in some workplaces because there is no clear upper temperature referred to in the ACOP.

• Key stakeholders in particular Trades Union representatives will continue to be dissatisfied. • There is a perception that the lack of an upper temperature disempowers workers when working

environments become uncomfortable.

1. Amend ACOP to include a Maximum Upper Temperature Limit in addition to the current lower limit

The TUC position. Action level set at 24° with strict lower (16 or 13°) and upper (30 or 27°) temperature limits, adjusted according whether strenuous work is undertaken.

• Responds to the express concerns of a key stakeholder group. • Would provide a clear reference point for employer and

employee organisations alike.

• Not supported by the scientific evidence base – that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range.

• Change to a more interventionist strategy does not appear to sit well with the New HSE Strategy. • The costs of regulatory intervention and of ensuring compliance in some sectors could be

disproportionate to the benefits. • Could provide a false sense of safety. Specified limits would not prevent heat stress from occurring

and could be counterproductive from a health & safety perspective if inaction occurred below the upper limit.

• Could lead to unnecessary work stoppages. • Could lead to increased energy use for cooling workplaces. • Regulatory impact assessment would be required to ensure no unnecessary burden on employers.

2. Amend Guidance and Engage with Stakeholders

Continue with current ACOP wording but update associated guidance and support with an information campaign.

• Reflects the New HSE Strategy. Does not require legislative change.

• If clear action levels for different sectors were included in the guidance this would address several disadvantages currently identified.

• Campaign to raise awareness could target SMEs through opportunities identified as part of the review – will increase knowledge in these areas.

• There appears to be some appetite for cross-industry working on such an approach.

• Will require continued HSE commitment for joint working with trades union and employer organisations.

• TUC case is that many employers unlikely to take action without a clearly specified upper temperature value.

3. Amend ACOP to include an Upper Temperature Action Level or levels

Amend ACOP to include a range of “action levels”, yet to be specified, targeted at specific working environments / sectors, at which employers are required to undertake a risk assessment and act on the results.

• Responds to stakeholder concerns. • Avoids a “no go” limit but encourages employers and

employees to take action in advance of problems becoming apparent.

• More targeted approach with clear triggers and appropriate guidance for different sectors.

• Would highlight the need to allow for different working environments.

• Given that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range, will require careful re-drafting of the ACOP to avoid confusion and simplistic interpretation.

• Would only be acceptable from a health & safety perspective if required a risk assessment or mitigation plan to be undertaken, rather than require work stoppage or an immediate reduction in workplace temperature.

• Potential for Trade Unions to view an action level and a maximum temperature in the same way. This will require careful provision of supplementary guidance.

• May be difficult to specify for all sectors and has potential to become overly complex and difficult to communicate effectively.

• Given other priorities within HSE, such an initiative would have to demonstrate clear cost effectiveness in terms of risk reduction.

• Regulatory impact assessment would be required to ensure no unnecessary burden on employers.

4. Amend ACOP to refer to an Acceptable Zone of Thermal Comfort

Amend ACOP to include wording previously employed by HSE. Support with new information campaign and supplementary guidance.

• Introduces a perceived upper temperature limit while maintaining an element of flexibility to allow for different working environments.

• Consistent with a risk based approach.

• Arguably compromises the scientific evidence base – that temperature is only one indicator of potential thermal discomfort in the upper range.

• The upper value is likely to be contentious (as too high) and will require consultation with key stakeholders.

• Could lead to misinterpretation without careful explanation and provision of supplementary guidance.

• Regulatory impact assessment would be required to ensure no unnecessary burden on employers.

7 Conclusions and Recommendations

The main conclusions of this Report are as follows:

The objective of this Report has been to provide a review of the current approach to workplace temperatures and in particular the reasons for and against a maximum workplace temperature and to report to the HSE. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of setting a recommended maximum workplace temperature.

It is clear that a focus on effective communication and dissemination of good practice advice is needed and should form a major part of any revised approach.

It is recommended that further work is undertaken to assess whether upper temperature action levels could be specified at which employers should undertake risk assessments to determine whether and what form of action should be undertaken. These levels should be investigated with a view to specification in improved guidance, possibly supported by revisions to the wording of the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) if deemed necessary. This process of undertaking further work on action levels and developing improved guidance should be undertaken in conjunction with key stakeholders.

As a minimum, Option 2 Amend the Guidance should be pursued through joint working and tripartite discussions between government and employer and employee representatives. Of particular interest is the need to provide guidance for those working in the bakery sector and those in “cab” type environments. In addition, further consideration should be given to the practicality and regulatory impacts of implementing Options 3 or 4 whereby the ACoP is amended to make clear when employers must follow the associated guidance.

On balance, it is suggested that the workplace temperature issue is not one that justifies active regulatory intervention but rather improved joint working between all parties to the issue – government, Trades Union and Employer representatives.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 13

• The relevant legislation remains valid today but the associated guidance could be amended to improve clarity and better reflect stakeholder expectations and the changing nature of workplaces and working patterns.

• Although there is a sound scientific justification for having minimum recommended working temperatures but not a corresponding maximum recommendation - for those working indoors, it is suggested that amended legislation and/or guidance can stay true to the scientific basis while better reflecting the perceived concerns of key stakeholders.

• The current guidance could be improved to address the corresponding effects - including seasonal variations - on those working outdoors as well as those working indoors and in different industrial sectors.

• At the same time, improved guidance concerning workplace temperatures in the wider 'good work' context, for example in relation to access to drinking water and other facilities in the working environment can be improved and are best developed through shared experience within and between industrial sectors.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 14 August 2009

Table 7.1. Summary advantages and disadvantages of setting a recommended maximum workplace temperature

Advantages DisadvantagesIntroduce a maximum recommended working temperature

• Clarity – that a recommended maximum would provide a clear reference point for employer and employee organisations alike to take action.

• Consistency – it would provide the basis for ensuring uniform standards for working comfort within and between industries.

• Wanted – there is general agreement that the current approach of not specifying a recommended maximum but providing a number of guidance materials instead requires improvement.

• Contentious - there is no single agreed value for a maximum recommended temperature. • Unscientific – the evidence base is that temperature is only one indicator of potential

thermal discomfort in the upper range. It is inadvisable to act on the basis of temperature alone.

• Risky – a single value could provide a false sense of safety. A specified maximum temperature would not prevent the risk of heat stress and could be counterproductive from a health & safety perspective if inaction to reduce heat stress occurred below the upper limit.

• Unnecessary - there is no evidence that thermal discomfort is a significant workplace hazard. The costs of regulatory intervention and of ensuring compliance in some sectors could be disproportionate to the benefits.

• Disruptive – a maximum recommendation could lead to unnecessary work stoppages, for example when raised workplace temperatures are temporary and simple measures to improve comfort would be adequate.

• Costs - ensuring compliance in older buildings could lead to significant capital costs and increased energy use for workplace cooling.

• Requires legislative change and subsequent enforcement. No recommended maximum specified

• Scientifically correct - the current approach provides sound guidance to employers and employees on how to address thermal comfort.

• Justified - strong regulatory intervention does not appear to be justified in terms of the known health impacts of workplace temperatures.

• Lack of Clarity - there are complaints that the guidance in relation to upper temperatures is not followed in some workplaces because there is no clear upper temperature referred to in the ACOP. There is a perception that the lack of an upper temperature dis-empowers workers when working environments become uncomfortable.

• Disputed - Trades Union representatives have consistently expressed dissatisfaction with the current approach.

• Leads to Confusion and Inconsistency – the rationale for not setting a recommended maximum temperature is poorly understood and views have been expressed of widely varying standards of thermal comfort in the workplace.

• Needs Additional Guidance – there is general agreement that improvements are required and some stakeholders have requested sector specific guidance.

8 References

8.1 Sources of Information

Bass, D.E., Thermoregulatory and Circulatory Adjustments During Acclimatization to Heat in Man. In: Temperature: Its Measurement and Control in Science and Industry, pp. 299-305. James D. Hardy, Ed. Reinhold Publishing, New York (1963).

Chrenko, F.A., (Ed) Bedford’s Basic Principles of Ventilation and Heating. H.K. Lewis, London (1974).

DiCorleto, R., Coles, G., Firth, I., AIOH Heat Stress Standard and Documentation Developed for Use in the Australian Environment, AIOH, Melbourne, (2003).

Gisolfi, C.V., "Influence of Acclimatisation and Training on Heat Tolerance and Physical Endurance." In: Heat Stress -Physical Exertion and Environment, pp. 133-147. J.R.S. Hales and D.A.B. Richards, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1987).

HSC. 1996. Workplace health, safety and welfare. Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (as amended by the Quarries Miscellaneous Health and Safety Provisions Regulations 1995). HSE Books 1992 ISBN 0 7176 0413 6

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Hot Environments -Estimation of Heat Stress on Working Man Based on the WBGT Index (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature). ISO 7243. ISG, Geneva (1982).

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Hot Environments – Analytical Determination and Interpretation of Thermal Stress Using Calculation of Required Sweat Rate, ISO 7933, Geneva. (1989b)

International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Ergonomics -Determination of Metabolic Heat Production. ISO 8996. ISO, Geneva (1990).

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, Statutory Instrument 1999, No. 3242, London: HMSO (1999).

Malchaire, J. et al. Development and validation of the Predicted Heat Strain model; Ann. Occup. Hyg., 45 (2) pp 123 – 135. (2001).

Nielsen, B., Effects of Fluid Ingestion on Heat Tolerance and Exercise Performance. In: Heat Stress -Physical Exertion and Environment, pp. 133-147. J.R.S. Hales and D.A.B. Richards, Eds. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1987).

Parsons K C., Human Thermal Environments (Second edition) Taylor and Francis (2002) ISBN 0415237939

Weber, H., Types of Acute Heat Stress, In: Heat Stress and Heat Disorders, American Society of Safety Engineers, (1984).

8.2 Links

The HSE web site provides information about how the temperature of the working environment can affect people, and advice on how to manage it:

RKCL/HSE Ref. 15 1.11.4.1101

• http://www.hse.gov.uk/temperature/index.htm

Additional links include:

• Heatwave: Plan for England - protecting health and reducing harm from extreme heat and heatwaves (2009), Department of Health[1]

• Workplace Health Connect[2] • Relevant British Standards[3] • General NHS information on thermal comfort [4] • Department of Finance and Personnel Northern Ireland (OHS

Information Sheet No. 5 - The Working Environment: Part 1 - Thermal Comfort)[5]

• Communities and Local Government[6] • CIBSE (Chartered Institution of Building Service Engineers)[7] • CIBSE Heatwave Briefing 1: Keeping cool in a heatwave:toptips for

facilities managers[8] • CIBSE Heatwave Briefing 2:Keeping cool in a heatwave: top tips for

building users

Australian Information includes:

• http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/Home/Forms+and+Publications/Guidance+Notes/import_Heat+Hazards+in+the+Workplace

• http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/eba5ee472bf43f2/Workplace%20amenities%20CC.pdf

• http://www.workcover.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/resources/file/ebcf9643b58ee3d/Victoria%20Compliance%20Framework%20Handbook.pdf

and recent press releases:

• http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/SiteTools/News/Extreme+Saturday+temperature+a+reminder+for+the+boss+workers

• http://www.worksafe.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/WorkSafe/SiteTools/News/Workplace+safety+a+hot+topic

Canadian Information includes:

• http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/health_and_safety/by_topic/assets/pdf/heat_stress.pdf

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 16

APPENDIX 1 Workplace Temperatures Questionnaire – list of respondents

Organisation Accord

Allied Milling and Baking Group Bakery

Asda - warehouse/transport section Bakers Farmers and Allied Workers Union (BFAWU)

Confederation of Business Industry (CBI)

Corus plc Desserts Man EEF Ltd

Federation of Small Business

First for Food Service (Food storage& distribution)

Greencore (food) (several questionnaires received) Hain Celestial UK Ltd (Chilled foods)

Heating and Ventilating Contractors' Association (HVCA) Milton Keynes Council Ministry of Cake

Moy Park Ltd food process National Association of Agricultural Contractors National Union of Teachers NUT Natures Way foods.

NHS (Kent & Medway, Thameside)

Norbert Dentressangle (Cold store and Transport)

PCS (DEFRA)

Polestar Printers Pork Farms (Riverside)

Road Haulage Association S&A Foods, Derby Sainsburys Retail - food

Smedley Salads Soleco UK Limited (Food manufacturer)

TCIG Tulip Ltd (food)

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 17

UK Steel (EEF Ltd) UK Warehousing Association

Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians (UCATT)

Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) Uniq Prepared Foods Northampton Sandwich

Unison

Unite the Union

Warburtons

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 18

APPENDIX 2 Agenda for Stakeholder Forum

HSE Stakeholder Forum Reviewing Workplace Temperatures

23 July 2009: Draft Agenda 10.00 – 10.30 Arrivals & Coffee

10.30 – 10.50 1. Introductory Remarks

• Welcome : Geoffrey Podger CB, CEO, HSE

• Introductions, Purpose and Structure of the Stakeholder Forum (Prof. Ray Kemp)

10.50 – 11.15 2. Update on Workplace Temperatures Review - Background (Prof. Ray Kemp) • Overview of the issues

• International Approaches to the Management of Workplace Temperatures

11.15 – 11.45 3. Understanding Concerns about Workplace Temperatures - Plenary Discussion (Prof. Ray Kemp) • Strengths and weaknesses of the current UK approach from

stakeholders’ perspectives

• Identifying key issues for discussion

11.45 - 13.00 4. Working Group Discussions

• Evaluation of key issues and options in 4 Break-Out Groups

• Identification of preferred approaches and their likely benefits / costs

13. 00 – 13.45 Lunch

13.45 – 14.30 5. Feedback Session - Plenary Discussion (Prof. Ray Kemp) • Working Groups’ Feedback and Facilitated Discussion

14.30 – 15.00 6. Summary Remarks and Close (Prof. Ray Kemp/Kate Haire, HSE)

• Summary of Key Points

• Next steps

• Thank you and close of Forum

APPENDIX 3 Stakeholder Forum: List of Attendees

Organisation Name Organisation Type

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 19

Hovis Baker Warburtons Baker Barclays Bank MAGB Brewers CIBSE/Observer Building Services Frutaron Catering Commercial Greencore Group Catering Commercial Greencore Group Catering Commercial Hovis Catering Commercial Tulip Catering Commercial Yum! Restaurant Group (KFC) Catering Retail CBA Chemicals Amey Construction CPA Cranes First Milk Group Dairy EIS Education FSB Federation of Small Businesses British Glass Manufacturers Glass Manufacture HCVA Heating & Ventilation Kent & Medway NHS Trust Hospital Mental Health Hospital Thameside NHS Trust Hospital Wandsworth PCT Hospital Sellafield Ltd Nuclear IOM Consulting Occupational Health Safety Practitioner Occupational Health House of Commons Library Political / Observer Polestar Print Home Retail Group Retail RHA Road Haulage BSC Safety organisation IIRSM Safety organisation IOSH Safety organisation RoSPA Safety organisation Corus Steel Accord Union ASLEF Union Bakers Union Union CWU Union CWUMSWL Union EEF Union GMB Union GMB Union GMB Union Kuehne Nagel (Unite) Union Musicians Union Union NUT Union

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 20

PCS Union RCN Union UCATT Union Unison Union Unite Union Unite Union USDAW Union

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 21

APPENDIX 4 Survey of National Approaches to Working Temperatures

Luxembourg Luxembourg does not have a legislation for a maximum work place temperature

Italy The microclimate is the whole of the components (i.e. temperature, humidity, air’s speed) that regulates the climatic conditions of closed or half-closed place as the workplace. Currently specific regulations, which establish fixed limits, do not exist, except for some specific workings. The VIII Title (Physical Agents) of Legislative Decree n. 81/08 (national OSH legislation) however includes, among the physical agents to estimate, the microclimate, therefore It is possible to make reference to the limits established by International Technical Regulations as: UNI EN ISO n° 10551 of the 01/01/2002: ergonomics of thermal atmospheres places – assessment of the influence of the thermal atmosphere by subjective values. UNI EN ISO n° 9241-6 of the 31/10/2001: ergonomic requirements for the job with video terminals (VDT) – guide on the workplace "

Austria Austrian OSH-regulations: If an air conditioning system is installed maximum work place temperature is 25 degrees Celsius and air humidity has to be 40-70%. Without air conditioning: all measures have to be taken to reduce work place temperature in warm seasons.

Slovenia In Slovenia the maximum work place temperature (28 degrees C) is defined by the Rules on requirements regarding the ensuring safety and health of workers at the workpace (Official Gazette of the RS, 89/99, 39/05). For more detail information, see below. Rules on requirements regarding the ensuring safety and health of workers at the workpace: 6. Room temperature Article 25 (1) The employer shall ensure that the room temperature in workrooms during working hours is adequate for the physiological needs of the workers, having regard to the nature of work and the physical demands placed on the workers at work, except in cooling chambers where the criteria for work in cold conditions shall be taken into account. (2) In the course of meeting the requirements referred to in the first paragraph of this article, the employer shall take into account the standard on warmth comfort. (3) The temperature of air in workrooms may not exceed 28°C. Exceptions are so-called hot workrooms, where the air

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 22

temperature may exceed 28°C, but in this case the employer shall ensure that the air temperature in the auxiliary rooms, corridors and staircases connected to such hot workrooms does not exceed 20°C. Article 26 The employer shall ensure that the air temperature in auxiliary rooms corresponds to the values laid down in Annex III of these Rules. Article 27 The employer shall ensure that windows, skylights and glass partitions are constructed and equipped so that they only allow in such a quantity of sunlight that does not adversely affect the temperature of the workroom. Article 28 (1) The employer shall ensure that workers are not exposed at their workplaces to the direct heat effect of heating installations. (2) The employer shall protect the surroundings of workplaces under strong heat effect from the installations or technological procedures from these effects. _______________________________________ Annex III ROOM TEMPERATURE IN AUXILIARY PREMISES DURING THE HEATING SEASON ----------------------------------------------------------------- Premise Room temperature (degree C) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Changing room 21 Shower room 24 Washroom 21 Toilet 18 Rest room 21 Room for duty staff 21 First-aid room 21 Room for pregnant and nursing mothers 24 Room where workers can warm up occasionally 21 Room for drying, cleaning and disinfecting personal protective equipment 21 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rules on safety and health at work with display screen equipment: Annex e) Room temperature The temperature must be such as to meet the requirements on

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 23

comfortable temperature for light physical work.

Norway

In Norway workplace temperatures are not regulated nor by law or regulations

Czech Republic

Employs a very complicated system which SMEs cannot easily follow but medical doctors are happy with the solution. Under ordinary circumstances workplaces follow the same rules that apply for houses. Around 20 degrees Celsius in offices and in other workshops to keep a temperature where people feel neither cold nor hot.

Germany 1. Are workplace temperatures regulated by law?

Concrete temperatures for the workplace are not regulated by law. Only in the “Ordinance on Workplaces” of 12 August 2004 (ArbStättV) in Annex 3.5 is the following regulation:

3.5 Room temperature (1) In working, rest, standby, sanitary, canteen and first-aid rooms in which no specific requirements are set for room temperature from the point of view of the undertaking, there must be a room temperature conducive to health, bearing in mind the physical strain on the workers and the specific use to which the room is put.

Technical rule “ASR 6 Room temperature” with concrete temperatures is not a law.

2. If so, do the regulations specify a maximum and/or minimum temperature?

Technical rule “ASR 6” gives specific maximum and minimum temperatures. 3.1 gives a table with minimum temperatures and 3.3 the maximum temperature for normal workplaces (26 °C). On hot Summer days it is permitted that the room temperature can be higher.

3. How are workplace temperatures managed by employers?

The “Rules for Safety and Health by the German Employers’ Liability Insurance Association”, gives advice for workplace temperatures managed by employers. These are the following rules: BGI 579, BGI 504-30 and BGI 7002 (headwork), BGI 7003 (coldness, comfort zone, head), BGI 504-21 (coldness) See : http://www.arbeitssicherheit.de/arbeitssicherheit/cms/website.php

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 24

4. Are there specific guidelines on workplace temperatures for employers working in specific sectors?

There are some specific guidelines in Germany. There is a German standard for work in cold – DIN 33403-5 (not a law), which is used in practice. Further, there is a law for underground mining work (Klima-Bergverordnung vom 9. Juni 1983, BGBl. I S. 685). There are concrete values for maximum temperatures. For all new buildings and reconstruction for Federal Government buildings, there is a new guideline (B12-8132.1/0 of 5 December 2008). This regulates the structural condition for buildings without air conditioning systems. In rooms in such buildings, a temperature up to approximately 30 °C is allowed.

5. Are there separate sets of guidelines for indoor and outdoor workers?

Regulations in the “Ordinance on Workplaces” and ASR 6 are only for indoor workplaces. For outdoor workplaces there is only a general regulation in annex 5.1:

5.1 Workplaces not enclosed on all sides and located outdoors. Workstations at workplaces which are not enclosed on all sides and which are outdoors must be designed in such a way that they can be reached, used and left again safely by the workers in all weather conditions and without any hazard to their health. This also means that workstations must be protected against inclement weather conditions or the workers must be provided with suitable personal protective equipment. 6. Are you currently, or do you have plans to review management of workplace temperatures?

A new technical rule for room temperatures – ASR A3.5 is planned sometime in the next 12 months.. See the English text of the “Ordinance on Workplaces” and the ASR 6 (German):

http://www.baua.de/de/Themen-von-A-Z/Arbeitsstaetten/Arbeitsstaetten.html?__nnn=true&__nnn=true

Health & Safety Authority

This is covered by Guidance Section 7 of Safety, Health and Welfare at Work General Applications Regulations 2007. There is no maximum temperature stated under the regulations but as a guideline a minimum comfortable working temperature for indoor sedentary workers is 17.5 degrees centigrade. In

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 25

extremely hot weather conditions, measures such as for example, the provisions of fans, provision of cold water dispensers and regular water breaks for staff, the relaxation of formal dress codes, the introduction of flexible working patterns etc., can assist in maintaining comfortable working conditions.

In addition, each enclosed workplace must be adequately ventilated. In most cases the natural ventilation provided through windows and doors will be adequate. However in some cases forced ventilation may be required.

See the Guide to the 2007 General Application Regulations for details.

Windows, skylights and glass partitions in offices must be so arranged as to prevent the excessive build up of temperature at workstations from excessive sunlight.

Estonia There is no such legislation in Estonia..

Holland See: http://www.arbobondgenoten.nl/faq/overig/faqklimaat2.htm

With the introduction of the labor decision in 1997 the PMV index was launched. This index is the result of a complex calculation that takes all kinds of things: temperature, humidity, air speed, clothing and work. The claim is then that the indoor climate comfortable as the PMV index between 0.5 and -0.5 is or less than 10% of staff will have complaints about the climate. An excess of these standards for 10% of working time is also found acceptable. The problem is that the official standard is very complicated and requires a lot of measurements and calculations.

Based on this standard and experience with practical uses FNV Allies the following practical rule of thumb:

• Above 26 degrees there is an extra tax, then held on possible measures such as cool places to pause, extra ventilation, etc.

• Front (seated) office, a maximum temperature of 30 degrees.

• For light work, a maximum temperature of 28 degrees. • For intensive work, a maximum temperature of 26

degrees, provided that there is a palpable air - other than

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 26

25 degrees. • For very intensive work, the maximum temperature of 25

degrees with a palpable air, 23 degrees without air movement.

• If the temperature exceeds the maximum rate should everything be done to strengthen the tax as low as possible to include: shorter working, as short as possible uninterrupted work, pausing in cool areas, custom clothing, extra ventilation, access to (sports drinks) drinking water, air-cooling techniques for installing a more structural approach.

Health Risks for Workers

From about 35 degrees with a humidity of 50% or higher, workers and other people a very real risk of heat stress if they commit major physical efforts. . The combination of heat and humidity makes high demands on heart and blood vessels. Effects of too much heat can be:

• Skin conditions such as itching and vesicular rash. • Heat cramps (cramps in the muscles) • Heat exhaustion by dehydration. • Hittesyncope arises when there is insufficient blood flow

to the brains, fainting is due. • A heat stroke is the most serious effect. This happens

when the internal temperature of the body above the 41 degrees is.

• In addition, by declining concentration, the risk of accidents increasing. For certain professions this great risks.

• Risk: extra burden of heat such as: pregnant women, people with lung disease (CARA), people with heart disease and those drugs against high blood pressure use.

At temperatures from 32 degrees to the first health action, and the body felt less well functioning: concentration of reduced headache and sometimes fainting. At temperatures of 40 degrees or higher, is an unacceptable risk for serious health problems. In the air force additional risks due to exposure to the sun are not included.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 27

Who runs the risk?

Of Dutch employees should be 39% (over 2.5 million) will agree to work in extreme heat. This is especially true for:

• workers in the air • employees in companies where production processes

generate heat (furnaces, paper factories, banks ...) • Workers in buildings with poor air conditioning • workers in transport without proper air conditioning

Additional risk employees for other reasons already vulnerable:

• diabetics • heart • pregnant women..

Health standards and regulations

The Health Decision - Part of the arbowet - requires that the temperature may be harmful to the health of workers. "Good workplace requires that at temperatures which are not directly harmful to health, appropriate measures are taken.

Solutions By operating at temperatures of

Strike the following measures

Hazard Class 3: 25 to 32 degrees for less than 180 hours per year (10% of working time)

• 30 degrees (sitting) office

• 28 degrees to light another job

• 26 degrees for intensive work, provided there is a palpable air is - other

Temporary measures are needed

• shorter work • as short as possible

continuous work • breaks in cool areas • lighting mute where it

can • heat-producing

equipment as far as possible off

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 28

than 25 degrees • 25 degrees for very

intensive work, with a palpable air, 23 degrees with no air movement

• custom clothing • additional ventilation • many (sports drinks)

drinking • air conditioning hire • Flat roofs may wetting

for cooling

The approach of Labor will have little meaning unless there are special circumstances.

Risk Class 2: 25 to 32 degrees for more than 180 hours per year (10% of working time)

Structural measures are needed

1. measures as specified in Category 1

2. by technical or organizational measures structural prevention of exposure to these temperatures, namely:

• a well insulated building • a good air-conditioning

and refrigeration (air conditioning or topkoeling)

• heat extraction • good, self-controlled

blinds and ventilation • heat-generating

equipment as far as possible in a separate room set up

• solar glass • Apply sun protection:

sunscreen is more

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 29

effective than outside Interior

• proper maintenance of buildings and installations

The approach of Labor will have little meaning unless there are special circumstances.

Risk Class 1: 32 degrees or higher (with humidity of 50% or higher)

Temporary, structural and complementary measures are needed

• measures such as risk class 1 and 2 Until such effect to be completed with:

• up to 1 hour continuous work alternating 30-minute breaks in cool areas

• up to 5 hours per day total of

• lower work rate and work intensity

• work immediately if safety or health (drivers, patients) risks

The approach of Labor may make sense in these circumstances. The Inspectorate will examine vragender would actually endorses the health risk is present.

Alarm Stage: 40 degrees or higher, unless appropriate measures are taken

If your employer does not take immediate action is approaching Labor and trade

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 30

union urgent. The health of workers and / or those in the same circumstances (eg passengers) is directly at stake.

The risk is real that Labor leave the work shut down until a sufficient maatregeken hit.

Hungary EU directive 89/654/EEC has been adopted in Hungary in the form of a (labour+ health) ministerial decree specifying minimum requirements of the workplace. In this decree we have dispositions regarding workplace temperatures as follows: Temperatures are defined for 4 work categories: intellectual (i.e. not physical); light physical; medium physical; and heavy physical work. In cold season (i.e. winter) 20-22; 18-20; 14-18; and 12-14 oC are the required minimums respectively. In warm season (i.e. summer) air temperature should be 21-24; 19-21; 17-19; 15-17 oC respectively; effective or corrected effective temperature 20; 19; 15; 13 oC. Maximum permitted temperatures in summer are 31, 31; 29; 27 oC for the work categories. There is, however, a disposition saying that should the workplace corrected effective temperature (indoor or outdoor) excess 24 oC , the workers should be protected against the heat by technical or organizational measures (protective drink, rest period and rest room etc.).

Finland There is no legislation for maximum work place temperature in Finland. In general the thermal conditions should sustain employees thermal balance and thermal comfort. Thermal conditions include among others temperature, air humidity, air movement (draught) and thermal radiation. Occupational safety administration has given the following recommendations on thermal conditions:

Load of the work

Heat generation

Temperature recommen-dation

Movement of the air

Light sedentary work

under 150 W 21 – 25 °C under 0,1 m/s

Other light work

150 – 300 W 19 – 23 °C under 0,1 m/s

Medium heavy work

300 – 400 W 17 – 21 °C under 0,5 m/s

Heavy work over 400 W 12 – 17 °C under 0,7 m/s In addition, according to established practice, the employer must using technical measures assure, that the temperature of the work place remains

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 31

under +25 °C, when the outside temperature is under +28 °C. If the work place temperature, regardless of the technical measures, exceeds +28 °C, the work must be lightened, by reducing the exposure time to the heat. Exposure times in light and medium heavy, compulsory work have established to be 50 minutes in a hour if the temperature in under +33 °C and 45 minutes in a hour if the temperature in over +33 °C. In higher temperatures and in heavy work particular protection measures must be taken. There are some points in the legislation about temperature: (All translations are unofficial) The Occupational Safety Act (738/2002) Section 33 (Ventilation of workplaces and volume of workrooms) of includes demand for the work place temperature under normal circumstances. There shall be enough satisfactory air to breathe at workplaces. The ventilation of workplaces must be appropriate and effective enough. The volume and area of workrooms shall be adequate. Section 39 (Physical agents and electrical safety) Employees’ exposure to thermal conditions, noise, pressure, vibration, radiation or other physical agents that cause hazards or risks to safety or health shall be reduced to such a level that no hazard or risk from these agents is caused to the employees’ safety or health or reproductive health. Government Degree on Health and Safety Demands of a Work Place (577/ 2003) Section 12 (Windows) The windows and glass walls of an office must be built of such material or covered in a way that considering the nature of the work, the employee avoids harmful heat load caused by the sun.

Spain The work place temperature, in Spain is regulated by Real Decreto 486/1989, which transposes the Council Directive 89/654/EEC concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the workplace to our legislation. By this regulation, temperatures must be between 17 to 27 ºC for sedentary task in offices and dining rooms, and between 14 to 25 ºC in workplaces for light work.

Sweden Section 31 of our provisions AFS 2000:42 says that indoor workplaces shall have a suitable thermal climate, adapted to the nature of the work. Temperatures are not regulated by law but the guidance to section 31says that if the temperature during light, sedentary work deviates permanently from 20-24 °C in winter and 20-26 °C in summer, the thermal climate should be investigated more closely.

For workplaces in chilled premises for manufacturing of food, the provisions AFS 1998:2 section 10, says that the temperature shall be

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 32

close to 16 °C.

For hot and humid workplaces, the provisions AFS 1997:2 says that the standard ISO 7243:1989 shall be used to determine WBGT. The maxixum allowed value of WBGT is given in the provisions.

There are no sepearate sets of guidelines for indoor and outdoor workers.

Our plan is to invalidate the provisions AFS 1998:2, probably during next year.

RKCL/HSE Ref. 1.11.4.1101 33