Category Archives: Global

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

An OSHA Update: Confidentiality, Subcontractors, and COVID-19 Guidance

Confidentiality of Injury and Illness Records

On June 4, 2020, Magistrate Donna M. Ryu ruled against the Department of Labor (DOL) in the case of the Center of Investigative Reporting v. DOL and held that employer injury and illness records filed with OSHA are not confidential and can be obtained by the media and/or just about anyone else under a Freedom of Information Act request. The decision seems to be based in some part on the 2016 rule proposed by OSHA (under then Assistant Secretary Dr. David Michaels) that was not adopted and that would have posted all such records filed with OSHA on the OSHA website. This was referred to in 2016 as the “shaming rule” for obvious reasons. The rule did not reach the final rule stage, but now Magistrate Ryu has brought back at least some of what Dr. Michaels was trying to accomplish at
that time.

In addition to the above, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the attempt by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) to force OSHA to promulgate an emergency temporary standard on the COVID-19 pandemic. This decision was made by a 3-judge panel of the court. The AFL-CIO has filed for an en banc hearing to have all of the judges of the D.C. Circuit hear and participate in a ruling on the case.

Working with Subcontractors

Be careful with how you treat the employees of subcontractors (subs) regarding safety compliance. Be sure you address this issue in your contract with your subs. Make sure you have a clear procedure for ensuring the safety compliance you require in your contract with your subs. In most cases, I suspect that you have procedures that maintain an arms-length relationship with your subs, so be sure any employee you have in charge of overseeing the work of your subs strictly and consistently follows those procedures. I recently became aware of a situation in which a company was cited for a fall protection violation where OSHA has taken the position that the contractor had a duty to ensure (i.e., guarantee) the safety of the sub’s employees. The OSHA compliance officer intercepted the principal’s employee while he was on his way to advise the site supervisor for the sub about the safety infraction. OSHA has taken the position that the contractor’s site supervisor should have dealt directly with the individual employees of the sub, rather than going to their supervisor.

Multistate Operations

If you are a contractor who works in multiple states, or a company covered by the general industry standards and have facilities in more than 1 state, you must be in compliance with the OSHA standards for all state-plan states in which you may work. For example, in Utah, a company with an employee who has a serious injury must report to Utah OSHA within 8 hours, even if the employee was not hospitalized. The state of Washington not only requires you to determine the integrity of walking/working surfaces (Federal OSHA standard at 1926.501(a)(2)), but also requires you to guarantee that the walking/working surface will support the weight of the employee who will work on it and his/her equipment. Regarding the pandemic, Nevada has promulgated an emergency temporary standard limiting the number of employees in an aerial lift, scissors lift, or JLG basket to 1 person.

In summary, remember that you are not just bound to the safety regulations in the state in which you are headquartered or in which you have your principal facility, but also to those in other states to which you send employees or in which you open new facilities.

COVID-19 Guidance

In the absence of a temporary emergency OSHA standard relating to COVID-19, OSHA continues to issue guidance and enforce safety and health practices under the general duty clause. OSHA issued more guidance for construction contractors in June, advising employers to perform a job hazard analysis (JHA) at the beginning of each work day to determine whether the work for the upcoming day will place them in the lower, medium, or high risk category, and then act appropriately with engineering and/or administrative controls. I recently heard comments from a New England federal OSHA compliance officer that he expects the construction company to reevaluate its work, as far as exposure potential, throughout the day, and adjust safeguards appropriately. The implication here is that whenever conditions on the site change in any way, a new JHA should be performed.

OSHA has defined lower risk for construction as work that allows workers to remain 6 feet apart with little contact with the public. Medium risk work requires workers to be within 6 feet of each other and with customers, visitors, and the public. High risk are those sites occupied by other workers, customers, or residents suspected or known to have COVID-19. In the guidance, OSHA lists engineering controls such as closing doors whenever possible or erecting barriers such as plastic sheeting. OSHA recommends that employers continually reassess these barriers. For administrative controls, employers should follow CDC guidance and train employees on the spread of the disease.

Recommended training is extensive. It includes such things as training employees to recognize the signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and how the disease is spread. You should also train employees in all policies and procedures applicable to the employee’s duties, and provide information on social distancing and personal protective equipment. Remind employees to stay home if sick, how to properly wear face coverings, and how to use Environmental Protection Agency-approved cleaning chemicals. As with all other safety issues, you need to determine how to apply your progressive safety program to COVID-19 pandemic issues.

The above measures are what OSHA considers to be “feasible” recommendations or guidance. For OSHA to allege a violation of the general duty clause, it must prove that an employer did not implement feasible work practices, administrative controls, and engineering controls. So, if you determine that any of this guidance is not feasible or creates a greater hazard, you should document the analysis that led to your conclusion in case you are cited for a general duty clause violation. An example of greater hazard might be an increased risk of a heat-related illness created by requiring employees to wear face coverings in a high or extremely high heat index environment.

As you can see, even though we do not have an emergency temporary standard from federal OSHA, we can see that we are dealing with an ever-changing landscape.

 

Copyright statement

This article was published in the August 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author(s) of any article in Insulation Outlook are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIA. The appearance of an article, advertisement, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA. Every effort will be made to avoid the use or mention of specific product brand names in featured magazine articles.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

A Q&A on COVID-19 as an OSHA Recordable Illness

In the July issue of Insulation Outlook, Auman, Mahan and Furry attorneys Abbie White and Gary Auman addressed OSHA guidance concerning the recording of COVID-19 cases. As the pandemic continues, Abbie White addresses employers’ questions.

Do I need to record an employee’s case of COVID-19 on my OSHA log?

This section applies to all employers with 11 or more employees. OSHA has stated that COVID-19 is a recordable illness and must be recorded on an employer’s 300 log if the following 3 criteria are met:

  1. The employee has a confirmed case of COVID-19, as defined by the Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC)—meaning that the employee has had at least 1 respiratory specimen that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2;
  2. The case is work related as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5; and
  3. The illness results in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or is a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed healthcare professional.

The first step simply requires that you determine whether your employee has tested positive for COVID-19. If the answer is “no,” you will not record the illness on your 300 log. An employee report of symptoms, without a confirmed positive test, is not sufficient to make an illness recordable. But now that COVID-19 tests are easier to come by in most locations, we should expect to see more employees with confirmed positive cases.

Assuming your employee has tested positive for COVID-19, you must move on to the second step and determine whether the illness is work related. This can be tricky, depending on whether there are other cases of COVID-19 in your workforce, and whether there is community spread of the virus in your area.

To comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 29 CFR 1904, employers must make a “reasonable determination” as to whether an employee’s COVID-19 case is work related. To make a “reasonable determination,” you must first ask your employee how he believes he contracted the illness. Your employee’s answer is likely to fall into 1 of 3 categories: (1) your employee believes he contracted the virus from someone outside of work; (2) your employee believes he contracted the virus at work; or (3) your employee will not know how he contracted the virus. If your employee reports that he contracted the virus outside of work (for example, he reports that he caught it from close contact with a friend or relative known to have COVID-19), your inquiry can probably stop with this information, unless you also have known COVID-19 spread within your workforce.

But, if your employee reports that he does not know where he contracted the virus, or that he believes he was exposed to the virus at work, you must proceed to ask follow-up questions about the employee’s in- and out-of-work activities. During this inquiry, you must be mindful of the employee’s privacy and avoid questions that could expose you to liability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, etc. For example, you could ask your employee if anyone he lives with has tested positive for COVID-19, whether he has been in close contact (within 6 feet for more than 15 minutes) of a person known to have COVID-19, whether he has recently attended any large gatherings, and similar generic questions. You may find it helpful to prepare—in advance—a list of questions you will ask employees who report COVID-19 cases. You might also wish to have your questions reviewed by your employment counsel to ensure your questions will not violate one of the many other laws that employers are required to comply with concerning employee privacy, protected status, etc.

Last, you should review the employee’s work environment for potential sources of exposure. According to OSHA, cases are “likely work related” when there is no alternative explanation other than workplace exposure, and 1 of the following conditions is true: (1) several cases develop among workers who work closely together; (2) the virus is contracted shortly after a lengthy and close exposure to a customer or coworker who has the virus; or (3) the employee’s job duties involve frequent and close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission. On the other hand, an employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work related if the employee is the only worker in his work area to contract the virus; his job duties do not include frequent contact with the general public; or if the employee, outside of work, closely associates with someone who has COVID-19.

You should be prepared to undertake this inquiry for COVID-19 cases reported by your own employees, as well as workers (not employed by you) that you supervise and/or control. For example, if you have temporary workers on your jobsite, or if you exercise control over a subcontractor’s employees, you will be required to record their
work-related COVID-19 cases on your OSHA log unless the temporary employment agency agrees to log it on their 300 log. Remember, it must be recorded on 1 log or the other, so this is something you might want to deal with in your contract with the temporary employment agency—see 29 CFR 1904.31(b)(2) and 1904.31(b)(4). You will need to make a reasonable determination as to the work-relatedness of those cases as well.

You must only record the case of COVID-19 if it is “more likely than not” work related. If you have conducted a reasonable investigation into the work-relatedness of the illness and cannot determine whether a workplace exposure played a causal role, the illness is not recordable. If it is a close call, and you decide not to record the illness, you would be well served to document the reasons you decided not to record the illness on your log.

You will have 7 days to record a case on your OSHA log. Thus, you will have about a week to investigate the source of the employee’s illness and make your “reasonable determination” as to work-relatedness. If you initially determine that a case is not work related, but later learn that it is, you must record the illness at that time. To avoid a potential OSHA citation for untimely recording, you should document the reason you initially determined the illness was not work related in addition to the date you learned information suggesting otherwise. Further, if you initially determine that the illness is work related, but later learn that it is not, you should line through the entry on your OSHA log. (Do not erase it!)

Assuming that your employee tested positive for COVID-19 and you have determined the illness is work related, you will need to determine whether the illness meets 1 of the other recording criteria (i.e., resulting in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or the illness is a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health-care professional). Cases of COVID-19 will virtually always result in days away from work; thus, there will be few, if any, situations where the third recording criterion is not met.

As always, the obligation to record work-related cases of COVID-19, along with other illnesses and injuries, only applies to employers with more than 10 employees in a calendar year.

Do I need to report a case of COVID-19 to OSHA?

This section applies to employers of any size. Only serious illnesses and injuries must be reported to OSHA—i.e., injuries and illnesses resulting in death, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, and/or loss of an eye. Although work-related COVID-19 infections may result in hospitalization or even death, they are only reportable to OSHA under certain circumstances. A hospitalization must only be reported if the employee is admitted to the in-patient unit of the hospital for treatment within 24 hours of the work-related incident (i.e., exposure). It will likely be difficult to determine when an employee’s work-related exposure occurred, and thus, difficult to determine whether the hospitalization occurred within 24 hours for purposes of reporting. If an employee dies from a work-related case of COVID-19, the death is reportable if it occurs within 30 days of the work-related exposure.

Editor’s note: For more on this topic, see “OSHA Raises the Bar for Investigating the Work-Relatedness of COVID-19 Cases” in the July 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook.

Copyright statement

This article was published in the August 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author(s) of any article in Insulation Outlook are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIA. The appearance of an article, advertisement, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA. Every effort will be made to avoid the use or mention of specific product brand names in featured magazine articles.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

OSHA Raises the Bar for Investigating the Work-Relatedness of COVID-19 Cases

On May 19, 2020, OSHA again revised its guidance to employers concerning enforcement of the record-keeping requirements found in 29 CFR 1904 as they pertain to the recording of COVID-19 cases.

From the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in the United States, OSHA has stated that COVID-19 is a recordable illness and must be recorded on an employer’s 300 log if the following 3 criteria are met:

  1. The employee has a confirmed case of COVID-19, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—meaning that the employee has had at least 1 respiratory specimen that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2;
  2. The case is work-related as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5; and
  3. The illness results in death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness, or is a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed healthcare professional.

While the first and third criteria are relatively easy to verify, determining the work-relatedness of COVID-19 is particularly difficult for employers when there is known community spread of the virus. In previous guidance, OSHA recognized this difficulty and stated that it would not require employers to determine the work-relatedness of a COVID-19 case (and would not enforce 29 CFR 1904) unless1:

  1. There was objective evidence that a case of COVID-19 may be work related (for example, a number of cases developed among workers who work closely together without an alternative explanation); and
  2. This objective evidence was reasonably available to the employer (including information given to the employer by employees, as well as information an employer learned regarding its employees’ health and safety in the ordinary course of managing its business and employees).

In practice, this meant that an employer was not required to undertake an extensive inquiry into the potential work-relatedness of an employee’s COVID-19 and could rely upon objective information that was reasonably available to it. Unless the causal link between COVID-19 and the workplace became known to the employer through the normal course of operating the business, the employer was not expected to record the case.

However, OSHA has announced that it will now enforce 29 CFR 904 with respect to employers across all industries2 and has issued new guidance that raises the bar for employers investigating the work-relatedness of COVID-19 cases.

Effective May 26, 2020, employers must make a “reasonable determination” as to the work-relatedness of employee COVID-19 cases. Now, employers must take affirmative steps to question employees with confirmed cases of COVID-19, rather than simply relying upon information that the employer could learn through the regular course of managing the business. To make a “reasonable determination,” employers should “(1) [A]sk the employee how he believes he contracted the COVID-19 illness; (2) while respecting the employee’s privacy, discuss with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and (3) review the employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure,” keeping in mind any other workers in the same environment who have contracted COVID-19. OSHA cautions that employers, and particularly smaller employers, “should not be expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries, given employee privacy concerns and most employers’ lack of expertise in this area.” So the “reasonable determination” is modified by the ability of the employer to obtain information while pursuing the steps enumerated in this paragraph, in light of the caution regarding employee privacy concerns and the recognition that most employers do not have expertise in these areas.

In addition to questioning employees, OSHA will continue to look at information that was reasonably available to the employer at the time the work-relatedness determination was made, but OSHA announced that it will also look at information that the employer learned later (after the work-relatedness determination was made) to assess whether the employer’s determination was reasonable. Such Monday-morning quarterbacking by OSHA places a burden on employers to revisit the “work-relatedness” determination of COVID-19 cases that were not recorded if subsequent information suggests that the case should have been recorded.

OSHA outlined the types of evidence that would weigh in favor of a COVID-19 case being work related, stating that cases are “likely work related” when several cases develop among workers who work closely together; if contracted shortly after a lengthy and close exposure to a customer or coworker who has the virus; or if the employee’s job duties involve frequent and close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission, and there is no alternative explanation other than workplace exposure. OSHA stated that it would also “[G]ive due weight to any evidence of causation,
pertaining to the employee illness, (sic) at issue provided by medical providers, public health authorities, or the employee herself.”
On the other hand, OSHA acknowledges that an employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if the employee is the only worker in his work area to contract the virus; his job duties do not include frequent contact with the general public; or if the employee, outside of work, closely associates with someone who has COVID-19.
Last, OSHA clarified that employers must evaluate the work-relatedness of each case using a “more likely than not” standard. OSHA stated, “If, after the reasonable and good faith inquiry described above, the employer cannot determine whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to the particular case of COVID-19, the illness is not recordable.” In other words, a mere possibility that the exposure occurred in the workplace does not make a case recordable.
It remains to be seen whether this new guidance ends up being a distinction without a difference, as many employers are already investigating employee COVID-19 cases to protect their other employees and comply with various state government directives. But, in the event OSHA pays a visit, employers should be prepared to prove they have made a “reasonable determination” as to the work-relatedness of employee COVID-19 cases. When an employer questions an employee with a known case of COVID-19, the questions and responses should be documented by the employer, dated, and stored in a location where the employee’s health information will be protected. If an employer decides that a particular case is not work related, it should document any and all reasons supporting that determination. In addition, employers who typically rely upon their workers’ compensation insurance carriers to investigate worker claims should not strictly rely on the insurance company’s investigation to determine the work-relatedness of the virus. To comply with OSHA’s directive, employers should undertake an independent investigation (which may have to be more extensive than their workers’ compensation insurance carrier’s investigation) of each claim and arrive at their own conclusions about the work-relatedness of COVID-19 cases. If the employer is in 1 of the few states that prohibit private workers’ compensation insurance, the bulk of the investigation on work relatedness will fall on the employer’s shoulders. OSHA has made it clear that it is the responsibility
of the employer to make the reasonable determination; and,
therefore, the employer will have to defend itself in the case of recordability by demonstrating that it did act reasonably in making its determination.

Citations:
1. This “hands off” policy did not apply to employers of workers in the healthcare industry, emergency response, or correctional institutions. Employers in those industries were required to continue making work-relatedness determinations on a case-by-case basis.
2. As always, employers with 10 or fewer employees are not subject to the injury/illness recording requirements in 29 CFR 1904 and need only report cases of COVID-19 that result in death, hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.

 

Copyright statement

This article was published in the July 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Eight Ways the Coronavirus Crisis is Changing Construction

In the span of 2 months, the coronavirus crisis has demanded sweeping changes from the U.S. construction industry, and experts say many of them will remain in place even after the outbreak recedes.

As contractors return to work on sites that were shut down by shelter-in-place initiatives, they face an industry that has been drastically changed by the both public health and economic effects of the pandemic.

“There are new factors coming into play now that you or I never thought about,” said Joe Natarelli, leader of Marcum LLP’s national Construction Industry Group. “And people need to plan now to be prepared for the long term.”

From a renewed emphasis on jobsite safety to longer project delivery times and the increased influence of organized labor, the virus has upended many facets of the industry. Companies that try to return to a business-as-usual mentality will face a harsh new reality, Mr. Natarelli said.

“There’s been a paradigm shift in many areas of construction that is leading contractors to do many things differently than they did in the past,” he said.

Here are 8 ways that COVID-19 has altered the construction industry for the near future and beyond.

1. Jobsites Will Be Cleaner and Safer

The virus put a spotlight on the importance of worker health and safety, and U.S. contractors responded by implementing new jobsite policies such as staggered shifts, employee temperature checks, and top-to-bottom disinfections of jobsites, tools, and machinery.

Superintendents at Bridgewater, Massachusetts-based Callahan Construction Managers have implemented a variety of protocols to promote social distancing and employee health, including a ban on carpooling, a 100% mask-and-glove policy, and well-stocked handwashing stations, according to President Pat Callahan. In addition, the company’s safety team made 200 gallons of sanitizing soap that has been distributed across jobsites.

This emphasis on cleaner, less crowded work areas is one that will not recede after the virus does, Mr. Natarelli said.

“Contractors can’t be thinking that they can bring workers back after all this dies down and it will be the same as always,” he said. “They’ll have to include a lot more health and safety measures so that employees are comfortable returning to work.”

Medical experts’ belief that outbreaks across the world will come in waves for months or even years to come make safety plans important now and into the future.

“Employers can no longer conduct business the same way as they did in the past,” Attorney Michael Rubin, Chair of Goldberg Segalla’s national OSHA and Worksite Safety Practice Group said. “Especially now, they need to be flexible and, in many instances, creative, as they think of new ways to perform certain tasks that they have performed in the same way for many years in the past.”

2. Distancing Will Be the Norm, Via Technology

The current emphasis on social distancing on jobsites will likely continue even after the current health threat passes, Mr. Rubin said. “We can expect to see less group activities and more clearly defined procedures and protocols for even some of the most routine work tasks,” he added.

Even as the current outbreak subsides in many areas, state and local officials are putting measures in place to mitigate risk on construction sites going forward.

The need for social distancing has also changed how contractors interact with project teams and with customers, and companies have developed unique solutions to stay in touch. California-based AECOM has launched an interactive web-based tool that allows clients to hold virtual public meetings, a crucial component in the process of creating public projects such as town halls, stadiums, and concert venues. The platform allows AECOM employees and customers to engage with the public about the impact and benefits of proposed projects without leaving their homes.

“It’s exactly like a real public meeting, but without the in-person element,” Kevin Carlson, AECOM’s Global Lead for Digital Transformation, noted.

In addition, in some areas of the country, building departments are implementing remote technology for inspections, a trend that will continue after the health crisis is over, according to Stephen Poposki, a building official in Cape Coral, Florida.

For instance, when faced with a recent inspection delay on a project in Nashville, Tennessee, general contractor DPR submitted 360-degree photos and videos to the local fire marshal for a virtual inspection, allowing it to turn the project over on time.

“I think we’re going to come up with some really efficient ways of doing business,” said Mr. Poposki. “And because people are also very aware of what’s going on in the news, they’re really more willing to accept change right now, and this is the perfect time to do it.”

3. Projects Will Take Longer

Many of the major safety changes on construction sites will add to the time it takes to complete projects. While crucial to keeping workers healthy, techniques such as suiting up with PPE, only allowing 1 trade on a site at a time, and staggering work shifts will slow down progress, and the days of fast-tracking a project may be over—at least for now, experts say.

“Construction schedules will not be the same as they used to be,” said Mike Benike, Executive Vice President at Rochester, Minnesota-based Benike Construction, during a COVID-19 webinar sponsored by Destination Medical Center, a public-private economic initiative in Rochester, Minnesota. ​​“Things will take a little longer because we won’t be able to have lots of people in the same place at the same time.”

Mr. Natarelli advises contractors to consider time constraints when bidding out new jobs, to make sure the contract reflects a reasonable construction schedule. The entire project team, including owners, architects, subs, and other partners, needs to understand that at least in the near term, projects will take longer than before.

“We’ll be planning jobs differently going forward,” he said. “These longer completion times aren’t going to go away anytime soon, and we need to be prepared going forward that if another wave of the virus does come back, we’re in much better shape and we’re much better prepared.”

4. Telework Will Become More Common

The coronavirus has also brought major changes to construction’s back offices. Forced to stay at home, many office employees have kept business operations running via remote work, relying on technology like videoconferencing, emailing, and texting to stay in touch.

This nationwide experiment in telework will likely cause many leaders to think about making the practice permanent. A recent Gartner study found that 74% of American companies will move at least 5% of their office workforce to permanently remote sites, and nearly a quarter of respondents said they will move at least 20% to permanently remote positions, according to a survey of the company’s chief financial officers (CFOs).

“CFOs, already under pressure to tightly manage costs, clearly sense an opportunity to realize the cost benefits of a remote workforce,” said Alexander Bant, Practice Vice President, Research for the Gartner Finance Practice.

While the trend toward remote work will lead to a dramatic reduction in the need for office space for many companies, others may think about expanding, noted Ross Forman, Managing Director of Business Advisory firm BDO.

These firms may seek to take advantage of lower rents to expand their office space to allow for greater social distancing in the workplace. This could mean a move away from the popular open office space layouts to allow for additional private space “to reassure skittish staff long after the worst of COVID-19 infections have passed,” he said.

5. Union influence will grow

Since World War II, the percentage of the U.S. construction industry involved in union memberships has steadily declined, from about 87% of the workforce in 1947 to 12.8% in 2018. Nevertheless, since the pandemic began, trade unions have taken on renewed influence in many areas of the country by advocating for members’ best interests in keeping sites operational and safe.

Recently trade unions in New York state were instrumental in persuading government officials to shut down projects that were previously allowed to continue, and in Massachusetts, 2 unions staged walkouts earlier this month in protest of what they deemed to be unsanitary working conditions.

At the same time, other unions have wielded their influence to keep members on the job. North America’s Building Trade Unions recently teamed up with the Associated General Contractors of America [and NIA] to ask government officials at all levels to make construction an essential service and exempt it from regional, state, and local shutdowns.

During the crisis, unions have provided a voice for workers who are struggling to decide whether they should stay home or go to work, said Mark Erlich, a Fellow at Harvard University’s Labor and Worklife Program. Unions also help laborers find new work after a layoff.

The appeal of unions will be stronger than ever going forward, Mr. Erlich said, a trend that “will likely come into conflict with cost-cutting measures that construction employers will inevitably be considering once they reckon with the financial losses from the crisis.”

“It’s going to cost more money and not going to be as efficient as in the past, but the market is going to force those types of changes,” Mr. Natarelli said.

6. Demand for Project Types Will Change

The coronavirus outbreak has reshaped the types of projects that will be built this year and
for many years to come. Hospitality, retail, and entertainment projects are likely to be in less demand, while healthcare construction and healthcare-related manufacturing projects could see more activity, according to Charles Hewlett​, RCLCO Real Estate Advisors’ Director of Strategic Planning.

In addition, demand for distribution and warehouse space may likely increase as U.S. companies favor higher inventory levels and emphasize supply chain resiliency over efficiency, Mr. Hewlett said.

“In the long run, expect more manufacturing facilities to locate in North America to ensure supply and access to markets during episodes like this one, a boon to economic growth and industrial and logistics facilities in the U.S. and Mexico,” he said.

Keith Prather, Market Intelligence Expert for Olathe, Kansas-based business management consulting firm Pioneer IQ, agreed, saying that less reliance on Chinese-made building products will create a surge of new manufacturing- and supply chain-related construction projects, such as factories and warehouses.

Experts are divided on how infrastructure initiatives will fare in the near future, with some noting that projects like road and bridge construction could suffer as state Department of Transportation revenue declines because of decreased fuel tax revenues, and federal infrastructure funding may be waylaid as Congress turns its attention to COVID-19 mitigation measures for business and unemployed Americans.

Nevertheless, some public works projects have received a shot in the arm because of the pandemic. The Airport Improvement Program will invest $3.2 billion in the development and modernization of aviation facilities across the country, and the governors of some states, including Florida and Minnesota, have accelerated billions of dollars of transportation projects in an effort to lessen the economic fallout from the coronavirus pandemic and to take advantage of fewer vehicles on the road.

7. Supply Chains Will Recalibrate

Even before the outbreak hit the United States, the coronavirus created major global supply chain disruptions, especially of goods from China, the source of about 30% of U.S. building materials last year. Government containment efforts and quarantines in China slowed or shut down factories in dozens of cities and provinces, leading to a falloff in production of everything from cars to smartphones. U.S. builders have noted delays and shortages in items like steel, surfacing, and case goods.

Wendy Cohen, Vice President of Operations for Sacramento, California, construction management firm Kitchell CEM, said she has experienced some delays in material availability since the crisis began. Kitchell project teams are working with clients, architects, contractors, and trade partners to identify shortages and develop creative solutions for the projects that the company continues to build for essential clients such as schools, colleges, and the Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

With so many sourcing challenges on the horizon, many American construction firms will be hesitant to resume orders from Chinese suppliers, according to Mr. Prather.

“How we source projects has a lot of weaknesses,” he said. “We believe that going forward there will be a lot of reshoring back in the U.S., where we’ll see an increase in our manufacturing ability here as well as heading into Mexico.”

Mr. Natarelli said many of his large contractor clients that are bidding out jobs include clauses in their contracts that call for as many as 5 backup sources for materials. Many are willing to pay higher prices for supplies coming from less risky locations.

“Alternative suppliers are very big right now, and contractors are weighing the risks with the rewards,” he said.

8. Modular Adoption Will Increase

An enhanced focus on worker safety will help accelerate the industry’s move to offsite construction methods. While contractors like PCL, Clark, and Mortenson have relied on prefabrication for many years, Mr. Natarelli said the coronavirus pandemic will motivate more firms to investigate the benefits of offsite building.

The assembly-line efficiency and climate-controlled environment of factory production can save on labor costs and shorten project schedules, but other advantages will take center stage in post-pandemic construction, according to Mr. Natarelli, including increased site safety and reduced congestion.

“It reduces the amount of time you’re in the field, and keeping the labor force in a controlled environment is good from a health standpoint, too,” he said. “So maybe now you have a job that went from 6 months to 9 months and maybe this can shave that to 8 months while you’re also promoting social distancing, too.”

 

Copyright statement

This article was published in the July 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

A Different Perspective Editorial: Lessons from Experience for the Power Generation Industry

Power plant owners and operators have experienced degradation of their boiler insulation. Damage can be caused by storms impacting exterior boilers, tube leak repairs, other modifications, or the pull of gravity over an extended time period. Degraded insulation creates a boiler performance problem in addition to hazards for personnel and nearby equipment.

Restoring lost insulation can be a difficult and expensive proposition due to limited access and large surface areas involved. The typical steam-generating boiler efficiency penalty caused by heat lost to the atmosphere is in the range of 0.25% to 0.4% when the insulation is in perfect condition. On the plus side, a proper insulation design and installation can save as much as 5% to 7% in fuel cost (oil, gas, coal, or refuse), paying for approximately 5% of the initial boiler construction cost.

The power generation industry needs cost-effective and thermally efficient insulation systems on its steam-generating boilers to maintain efficiency and ensure personnel and equipment safety. This key component can fail due to improper installation or design of the insulation (and lagging) systems. Experienced and qualified contractors—and, in some cases, plant maintenance personnel—are key to correct installation. Insulation systems fail because the power industries—including designers—often fail to understand how far the industry has regressed. For many reasons, the power industry has gone through major reorganization, mergers, and plant shutdowns. This, in conjunction with an aging workforce, has led to a change in how the industry looks at insulation of its steam-generating boilers. Fewer than 20 years ago, most power boiler companies and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) understood the importance of insulation for energy efficiency. These same companies also had training and continuing education programs to help keep their boilers operating efficiently while keeping their installation costs reasonable. Unfortunately, much of the expertise and knowledge in today’s boiler industry has been lost or forgotten.

That loss of knowledge has, in turn, led to the end of keeping historical records for the insulation systems used on steam-generating boilers. Once keeping historical information stopped, the continuing education programs also began to dwindle. The industry has suffered as a result because reviewing historical data helps improve boiler design; correct design flaws; document labor variances; improve labor productivity; and establish better costs, budgets, and bids.

Loss of Historical Data

Without historical data, it inevitably costs more to repair or replace existing insulation systems and equipment. With the technology and tools available today, it is easier than ever to record and track data, but this must be an ongoing process, and the data recorded needs to be kept for historic records to give companies an overall view of their system’s performance and successes. Here are 3 examples of the effects of a lack of historical data.

Example 1. Many boiler manufacturers design (and supply) their flues, ducts, and emission control equipment systems without taking into consideration the cost or effect their stiffener designs will have on the insulation and lagging that will be required later in the project. Historical data would support and confirm that using large stiffeners (greater than 7 inches high) is detrimental to the longevity and integrity of the insulation and lagging systems being designed and installed today.

Example 2. Many OEMs and power generation companies have changed their standards to mandate double-layer applications on their boiler walls. The thinking is that double-layer application is better than single layer because it eliminates gaps between the individual insulation pieces and reduces the chances for hot spots on the outer lagging or
casing surface. However, there is no documentation to support that this is universally true. Historical data could confirm or disprove whether using double-layer instead of single-layer insulation provides a better insulation system. Going to double layer does not ensure the elimination of gaps or prevent improper insulation applications, but proper installation does.

Figure 1 through Figure 3 illustrate some examples of how installing a double-layer system does not prevent costly mistakes. Each of these photos represents violation of most OEM installation specification requirements.

Example 3. Some companies increase the insulation on existing boiler walls or soon-to-be-built boilers from the original design of 4” thick to 5” thick, based on the theory that more insulation is better for energy savings. While insulation provides energy savings, the buckstay design should not be neglected when making this change. Historical data would show that increasing the boiler wall insulation without also changing the distance of the buckstays to the tube wall can create other problems (see Figure 4 and Figure 5) that may outweigh the desired savings.

Lack of Continuing Education and the Need for a Boiler Standard

The lack of a continuing education programs for the power industry is also costing the industry money. A typical power plant may have 2 or 3 different types of boilers, with different tube wall designs. Such a scenario requires personnel with specialized understanding of all the different types of boilers, their unique operation requirements, the large multidirectional expansion that can occur, and the potential need to install the materials while the boiler is in operation. Adding to this is the impact that changing fuels, adding gas turbines, or going to a co-generating system has on the power and insulation industries. We must begin to take note of these changes, especially when converting to alternative fuels in existing boilers. We also must anticipate and adjust to new outage requirements when adding gas turbines to replace existing coal- or oil-fired units. And we must change how we view the importance of both insulation and refractory when adding a co-generation system.

Understandably, working in the power industry has changed over time. No longer do the power plants and OEMs have the expertise or personnel to monitor proper installation of their insulation systems; and most of the workforce used to install insulation has limited or no experience working at power plants. Each boiler may have its own set of standards and applications, depending upon who manufactured the boiler. There can be confusion as to what insulation system is to be used and how to install the system. Consider the following examples:

  • Example 1. 1 boiler may require insulation behind the buckstays, whereas another may require a poured insulation.
  • Example 2. 1 boiler may require the penthouse enclosure to be internally insulated, while the boiler next to it has an externally insulated and lagged penthouse enclosure.
  • Example 3. 1 boiler may be top supported, while the boiler next to it is a bottom-supported unit. The expansion is different and must be accounted for.
  • Example 4. 1 boiler may require a 1-rib overlap on the outer lagging, whereas another does not.
  • Example 5. 1 boiler may have insulation attachments on 12” centers, compared to another boiler requiring a different spacing (e.g., 18” x 21”).
  • Example 6. 1 boiler may require buckstay covers even as another right next to it does not.

Not listed above but equally important are the different ways to insulate pipe, valves, and fittings. When a power plant changes from coal fired to gas turbines it will no longer be necessary to inspect the air heater baskets as often or remove and replace large areas of boiler wall insulation. In lieu of this typical type of work during outages, there will be more emphasis on efficiency and heat loss. Piping standards, like boiler wall insulation standards, differ from 1 boiler manufacture to another and will need to be consolidated
or revised.

Here is an example: When doing frequent inspections of large steam valves, removable insulated valve covers will be needed. In years past, the valves may only have been inspected every 2 years, and they were wrapped with an insulated blanket and covered with jacketing. Now, the frequency will be once or twice a year. Labor will need to know how to fabricate a removable valve cover. (Please see Figures 6, 7, and 8.)

The examples described are not all inclusive, which is why many in the industry are calling for unification or the development of agreed-upon insulation application standards that may be applied to all membrane or inner-cased boilers, and on gas turbines and co-generation systems. The need for such standards is demonstrated by all of the examples and issues described in this article; and it would address the fact that working at a power plant requires a special understanding of the different types of boilers; their unique operation requirements; and the large, multidirectional expansion that can occur.

Power and Insulation Industries Expanding

The power and insulation industries are going through a growth and change not seen since the late seventies and early eighties. Power companies will be spending billions of dollars on new power plants, retrofitting to accommodate new fuels, adding a co-generation system, or moth-balling their existing coal-fired boilers and replacing them with gas turbines. The power industry must educate all its workers on the importance of maintaining good historical data, and it must keep up with training for working at a steam-generating plant. To improve the power industry, we need to develop and maintain a well-educated workforce. This should apply not just at the power plants but also include boiler inspectors dealing with insulation applications and OEM companies and suppliers. To accomplish this, everyone—including labor associations—must work together to improve the power generation industry.

With the increase in today’s new boiler construction, including heat recovery steam generators, now is the time to increase the level of understanding of insulation and of the value of keeping historical data, increase the availability of continuing education programs, and agree upon an insulation application standard that makes sense for saving energy and is easy for installers to understand and follow.

Conclusion

Lower fuel costs coincide with lower equipment and maintenance costs. Energy savings can be achieved by properly designing and installing insulation (and lagging), and it begins with a better educated workforce and recording and maintaining historical data both at the plant level and at the OEMs. Implementing these recommendations will help establish industry standards for proper insulation applications and provide the industry with the information needed to improve boiler and plant reliability.

Copyright statement

This article was published in the June 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Coronavirus Response for Employers—Next Steps and New Questions

By Auman, Mahan & Furry

Please contact Amy Mitchell (acm@amfdayton.com), Matt Bakota (mjb@amfdayton.com), or Steve Watring (saw@amfdayton.com) for questions specific to your business and as additional questions and circumstances arise.

March 17, 2020

We know you are receiving numerous emails providing guidance on how to handle the impact of COVID-19 on your workforce. We also have received such emails, and unfortunately, not all guidance being issued is accurate or based on the law. Instead, it appears some of the guidance is based on news reports, tweets, and summaries of proposed laws as opposed to the actual laws in place. Please know that we at Auman, Mahan & Furry believe it is more important to be accurate than to be first at sending out information. At the same time, we know you are being forced to make quick decisions on these issues. As such, we are providing the information below as a supplement to the March 11, 2020 article  posted on our website in response to additional questions we have received. The information below discusses specifics for Ohio employers relating to unemployment compensation but also addresses issues applicable to all employers throughout the United States.

If an employer reduces the work hours of employees due to the impact on its business, do the employees have to be paid their full wages?

Absent a union contract or other agreement or understanding, wage-hour laws only require you to pay hourly employees for hours actually worked.

Importantly, if you reduce the hours of exempt salaried employees because of business conditions, you normally must pay them their full salary unless they do no work during the entire week. You normally can require them to use paid leave for the time missed, as long as they receive their full pay. Other options include converting them to hourly or reducing their salary, provided that you provide notice and it is not done retroactively.

An employer can take a proportionate deduction from the salary of an exempt employee if they take intermittent Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave. See below for additional information on FMLA.

Are employers required to allow employees to work from home?

In most situations, no. An employer is not required to allow an employee to work from home unless it is determined to be a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act or state law for medical conditions that qualify as a disability. COVID-19 normally will not qualify as a disability.

Are there any long-term consequences to allowing employees to work from home during the pandemic?

If an employer permits an employee to work at home during the pandemic, the employee may assert that physical presence at work is not an essential function of the position and try to continue to work at home after the pandemic has subsided. In order to limit the effectiveness of this argument, employers should provide written notification to any employee working at home that telework is being permitted on a temporary basis only because of the extraordinary situation in the workplace caused by the coronavirus and that it is being permitted even though the employee may not be able to perform all of the employee’s essential job functions during this temporary period.

Will employees be eligible for unemployment benefits in Ohio if an employer closes or lays off employees because of a coronavirus-related reason?

Yes. Governor Mike DeWine issued an executive order to expand unemployment benefits for individuals otherwise eligible who are requested by a medical professional, local health authority, or employer to be isolated or quarantined as a consequence of COVID-19, even if the employee is not diagnosed with COVID-19. In addition, the normal 1-week waiting period for unemployment benefits will be waived.

If an employer sends an employee home because the employee is exhibiting symptoms or has been exposed to someone who tested positive for COVID-19, will the employee be eligible for unemployment benefits in Ohio?

Yes. If the employee is not otherwise receiving pay, the employee will be eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to Governor DeWine’s executive order as explained above.

Are employees entitled to unemployment benefits in Ohio if they stay home from work to self-quarantine or due to lack of childcare available?

In most cases, no. If an employee stays home at the individual’s own choosing, not based on the employer or medical professional’s advice, the employee would not be eligible for unemployment benefits.

Does an employer have to excuse an employee who calls off of work to self-quarantine or to practice social distancing even if the employee does not have symptoms or previous known exposure to COVID-19?

At this time, no. An employer’s normal attendance policy can apply to any such absences. However, if the employee has an unrelated medical condition that qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act or state law and has been advised by a physician to not attend work, it may, depending on the circumstances, be a reasonable accommodation to allow the employee to take a leave of absence. In addition, OSHA provides protections for employees who refuse to work if they believe they are in imminent danger, and the National Labor Relations Act provides protections to employees, union and non-union, who engage in protected concerted activity for mutual aid or protection. As such, we recommend caution and contacting legal counsel before disciplining or terminating an employee for such absences.

The amendments to the FMLA being considered by the U.S. Senate at this time may permit employees to use FMLA leave for this purpose. However, until such amendments become law, FMLA does not apply to absences solely to self-quarantine or practice social distancing.

Are employees eligible for short-term disability benefits?

Medical professionals currently indicate that most individuals who test positive for COVID-19 will not require medical treatment or experience serious or long-term symptoms. An employee will be eligible for short-term disability benefits only if their symptoms and medical condition meet the requirements of the policy. Employees who are off work for self-quarantine purposes only will not normally qualify for short-term disability benefits.

If an employer decides or is required to close or lay off employees for COVID-related reasons in Ohio, is the employer required to give advance notice?

The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act applies to business with 100 or more full-time workers and requires advance notice for mass layoffs and plant closures affecting at least 50 employees. However, WARN Act requirements are not triggered if the layoff is for 6 months or less. If the employer determines that the layoff will be extended for more than 6 months, written notice will be required at the time that the need for the extension becomes known. We are hopeful, based on the information currently available, that the COVID-19 pandemic and closures will not extend to the 6-month mark.

What will be required if the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, H.R. 6201, passed by the House becomes law?

Significant changes are anticipated when the Senate considers H.R. 6201 this week. At this point, it is too early to anticipate the extent of unpaid and paid leave that may be required and the specifics as to the size of employer it will cover. Under the current FMLA, eligible employees are entitled to up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for a serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. An employee with COVID-19 may, if they experience severe symptoms or complications, qualify for unpaid FMLA leave but not all employees with COVID-19 will be eligible under the FMLA. The Department of Labor has previously issued guidance confirming that employers cannot apply FMLA leave to absences that do not qualify under the law. Once the law is finalized, we will be issuing additional guidance based upon the actual provisions of the new law. We have draft guidance waiting for final revision based upon any changes that are made to the current draft bill.

What else can I do?

  • Understand and comply with the law. Try to keep up with changes. If in doubt, get good legal advice before acting. Check back often on the Auman, Mahan & Furry website for updates.
  • Look for opportunity in adversity. While nobody knows the future, there is a good chance that this will be short-lived. Keeping good employees through bad times often builds loyalty and pays long-term dividends. There also may be a temporary opportunity to pick up some workers that were not available less than a month ago.

 

Please contact Amy Mitchell (acm@amfdayton.com), Matt Bakota (mjb@amfdayton.com), or Steve Watring (saw@amfdayton.com) for questions specific to your business and as additional questions and circumstances arise.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Safety News Alert: Coronavirus

From NIA Legal Counsel Gary Auman, Auman, Mahan & Furry

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is on many employers’ minds, creating questions and fears as to how to plan for the future and what their obligations to their employees may be. False information is also rampant as people teeter between panic and apathy. As such, now is a good time for employers to take action in preparing both their employees and their worksites for possible implications of the virus.

OSHA has released a guidance document for employers on their website at  https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3990.pdf. It is essential for employers to remember that both this OSHA guidance publication and this Safety News Alert are only RECOMMENDATIONS; they are not additional rules that employers must comply with under OSHA. With that said, it would be prudent for employers to consider the advice both in the publication and in this alert.

In its publication OSHA has provided exposure risks in 4 categories: very high, high, medium, and low. The very high risk is for those medical, laboratory, or postmortem staff who are involved with known or suspected cases of COVID-19 and use aerosol generating procedures or specimen handling. The high category includes those medical, postmortem, or laboratory staff who do not use aerosol generating procedures or potential COVID-19 specimens. Most employers do not fall into the top 2 categories.

The medium risk category is where many more employers will have concerns. According to OSHA, jobs having a medium risk “include those that require frequent and/or close contact (i.e., within 6 feet of) other people who may be infected.” This would include potential exposure through community transmission, the general public, travel, retail, etc. This also includes contact with those who may not know they are sick.

Jobs that require no contact with possibly infected people (or within 6 feet of the general public) fall into the lowest risk category. OSHA has provided this pyramid visual, showing that most employers are in the lower risk and medium risk groups.

Based on these 4 categories, OSHA has SUGGESTED, not required, procedures for employers. Those in the lowest risk category have 1 primary suggestion: monitor public health information both in your state and with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and make sure your workers are aware of their recommendations. No additional protections are currently recommended— no face masks or engineering controls. This suggestion, if implemented, will result in communicating those recommendations to employees.

Those employers in the medium risk category should consider making some changes. OSHA recommends that these employers consider restricting public access, potentially using face masks, limiting face-to-face contact, and even making medical screening available. Each employer should assess the kind of contacts they have with people when implementing these suggestions. For instance, grocery businesses will likely have more contact with the general public than roofing operations. It is up to each employer to determine the risks at each worksite and how to protect their employees. It would be rare for employers in this category to require respirators, but if they are used, remember a written respiratory protection program as well as other requirements under OSHA MUST then be followed.

Those employers in the high and very high risk categories have several more considerations according to OSHA, including engineering controls such as isolation rooms; administrative controls such as signs, monitoring of both medical and stress induced conditions, and education; and personal protective equipment such as respirators.

It is important to remember that these are OSHA recommendations and not additional rules. However, with the spread of the coronavirus and the fears associated with it, it may be wise for employers to at least consider implementing some of OSHA’s recommendations to all employers. OSHA advises all employers to develop an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan to include the following: how to implement governmental guidance; assessing the level of exposure risk to employees; non-occupational risk factors; worker specific risk factors (i.e., age and health); potential controls for those risks; and contingency plans for outbreaks such as absence, distancing, remote work, reduced or staggered workforce, and supply chain interruptions.

Employers should also consider implementing policies such as encouraging frequent handwashing, staying home if sick, housekeeping, and not sharing equipment where possible. OSHA recommends employers develop policies and procedures and train employees on them should an employee become infected with COVID-19, including identification, reporting of symptoms, and potential isolation at the jobsite. Employers should consider addressing employees’ concerns regarding sick policies, absenteeism, and pay issues. Employers should not require a sick note for an absence as this would expose more people to the virus.

There are more recommendations available on the OSHA, CDC, and state websites. Although these are not required rules, it would be prudent for employers to take action in preparing for possible implications of the virus. This is not a time to panic, but it is a time to prepare. Having a plan, educating employees on that plan, and implementing precautionary measures is vital to securing a non-panicked, prepared workforce. Employers should be aware that OSHA is receiving complaints from workers regarding allegations of a lack of concern and effort by some employers to take proactive steps to protect their workforce in light of COVID-19. In such cases OSHA, if it were to investigate, would do so under the General Duty Clause.

 

 

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Coronavirus Response for Employers

The following is based on information known as of March 11, 2020, related to COVID-19. It is subject to change based on further developments, such as announcements by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other federal, state, or local government agencies. It also is intended to generally apply to employers within the United States in the construction industry. Employers located or working in one of the areas in the United States that have been identified as having a significant amount of confirmed COVID-19 cases, or even deaths, should consult labor and employment counsel for advice specific to their location and situation.

Additionally, as this information was being prepared on March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a “pandemic.” The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency that enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, including the laws that prohibit disability-related discrimination and impose restrictions on employers regarding employees’ medical information. Even according to the EEOC, in its “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” guidance dated October 9, 2009, (Guidance), employers have more rights and are subject to fewer restrictions when doing business amidst a pandemic. The Guidance concerned pandemic influenza, but there is no reason to believe that the EEOC’s positions would be substantially different as to a COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Note, however, that several of the opinions below would be different if not for the WHO having declared a pandemic. Also note that as of this writing, the CDC has not yet declared a pandemic.

With that, here are common COVID-19 questions we are getting, and our opinions based on the current status of the situation and information currently available:

  1. Can employers send home employees who exhibit signs of illness, including signs that are also symptoms of COVID-19?

Yes.

  1. What questions can employers ask employees who report feeling ill at work or who call in sick?

Employers may ask if an employee is experiencing specific symptoms associated with COVID-19. However, employers still must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

  1. Can employers tell sick employees to stay home, and to not return to work unless they can provide a doctor’s note confirming they are not contagious?

Yes, as to telling sick employees to stay home. Yes, as to a doctor’s note, unless doing so is prohibited by a collective bargaining agreement, a specific policy, or state or local law.

  1. Can employers require employees to adopt infection-control practices, such as regular hand washing, coughing, and sneezing etiquette, and proper tissue usage and disposal, at the workplace?

Yes. Practices specific to jobsites and other work locations outside of a business office should be fine as well. Employers generally should feel free to instruct employees consistent with guidance from the CDC and other federal, state, or local government agencies, if the instructions are provided uniformly to avoid allegations of discrimination.

  1. Can employers require employees to wear personal protective equipment designed to reduce the transmission of infection?

In the case of a pandemic, yes. However, employees who need a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (such as non-latex gloves, etc.) should be given the accommodation absent undue hardship. On the other side of the coin, employers are not required to allow employees to wear masks, gloves, or other items in the workplace out of general fear of being exposed to COVID-19. (Employers can say no to that to avoid inciting panic among coworkers, customers, clients, etc.) One caveat is that this article focuses on employment law issues; workplace safety issues concerning personal protective equipment that are regulated by OSHA, and similar such issues, are being addressed by our firm under a separate publication that you also should review.

  1. Can employers take employees’ temperatures as they come into work to determine whether they have a fever?

No . . . at least not yet. Measuring an employee’s body temperature is a medical examination under the ADA. However, the EEOC’s position under the Guidance is that employers may measure employees’ body temperatures if (a) symptoms of an illness that has reached pandemic status become more severe than the seasonal flu or the H1N1 virus from spring/summer 2009, or (b) the illness becomes widespread in the community as assessed by state or local health authorities or the CDC. We would not advise employers to start checking temperatures at this time, and labor and employment counsel should be consulted before this practice is officially implemented in your company.

  1. What information can employers disclose if an employee has a confirmed case of COVID-19?

Employers can tell employees that one of their coworkers has a confirmed case of COVID-19, and that they may want to see a doctor themselves. But employers should not identify the employee by name; employee medical information still must be treated as confidential. Even if employees may be able to connect the dots based on who is absent from the workforce, employers and supervisory personnel should still refrain from confirming the employee’s identity. If employers become aware of an employee not abiding by government-issued quarantine recommendations or requirements, employers likely can report that to appropriate authorities. We have not yet heard of any requirement that employees notify their employers if they are diagnosed with COVID-19.

  1. Can employers ask an employee why he has been absent from work if the employer suspects it is for a medical reason?

Yes. An employer is always entitled to know why an employee has not reported for work.

  1. Can employers require employees to get tested for COVID-19?

As a threshold issue, this does not seem to be viable right now even for employees who go out sick. The availability of official COVID-19 tests is limited, and the reality is that tests generally are being administered only to symptomatic people. Beyond that, for right now the best practices would be to proceed within the limits mentioned above, and not demand testing that seeks a medical diagnosis and may disclose other restricted medical information.

  1. Can employers impose travel restrictions on employees?

Generally, yes. Employers can restrict travel if the rules apply company-wide, and if they are not attempting to restrict only personal travel while requiring employees to travel to the same area(s) for business reasons. However, some states, such as Illinois, make it unlawful to discipline an employee for lawful behavior that occurs on personal time. As of now, there have been government recommendations not to travel, but that is not the same as travel being made illegal. To best address this issue, employers could implement a policy that: recommends against travel; requires employees to notify the employer in advance of any planned travel; provides a mechanism for exceptions to be made in appropriate cases for either business or personal travel; and provides for discipline up to and including termination for failure to abide by the policy. In this way, an employee who travels in violation of the policy could be disciplined for a policy violation, not for the travel itself. (We advise that you consult with labor and employment counsel prior to any decisions regarding discipline for such an employee.) We would not anticipate problems if an employer requires an employee to abide by government recommended or required quarantine periods, related to travel to specific areas, before returning to work.

  1. Can employers terminate the employment of someone who has a confirmed case of COVID-19?

We would not recommend terminating an employee for that reason alone. That said, an employer can apply its existing attendance and leave policies to an employee who misses work with a case of COVID-19. (Additionally, healthy employees do not have a right to call off and not come to work simply out of COVID-19 fear.) However, any federal, state, and local leave laws that cover the employer normally are still going to cover the employer in this situation. Additional leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA also can be a particularly tricky issue. Therefore, you should consult labor and employment counsel if you are considering terminating someone diagnosed with COVID-19, even if you believe there has been a violation of one or more of your policies. While we are on the topic of the ADA, COVID-19 by itself probably will not be considered a disability under the ADA if an employee’s symptoms are temporary and like a bout with the flu. However, if an employee’s illness lasts longer and becomes more severe because of his underlying medical condition(s), it could rise to the level of a disability under the ADA. In that case, all rules and requirements of the ADA would have to be considered in dealing with the employee.

  1. What questions can employers ask of applicants related to COVID-19?

Employers could ask pre-offer questions about recent travel to affected areas, if the questions are asked of all applicants. Employers could then defer decision on an application during any applicable quarantine period. Pre-offer inquiries are limited. According to the EEOC Guidance, depending on specific circumstances, some employers may be able to require post-offer medical examinations to determine an applicant’s general health status, if all applicants in the same job category are required to undergo the examination and if the information collected is maintained confidentially in the manner required by law. In limited specific situations, the EEOC Guidance even contemplates rescinding a job offer based on the results of a post-offer medical examination, if the applicant poses a direct threat within the specific meaning of the ADA. The path of post-employment medical testing aimed at COVID-19-related matters is a difficult and risky one that should not be taken without consulting with labor and employment counsel.

  1. Are employees who are diagnosed with COVID-19 entitled to pay while not at work?

Employers should apply their existing policies, which typically will determine whether an absence is paid or unpaid. Some employers may want to proactively institute additional policies that provide for pay and/or do not require use of accrued leave under these unusual circumstances, but they are not required to do so. Additionally, doing so could create other legal issues down the line if other employees are treated differently. (No good deed goes unpunished, as they say.) An important point also is that if an employee is on unpaid leave, they cannot be asked to do work. If they are asked to do work, they will have to be paid under wage-hour laws. For a salaried exempt employee, even a small bit of work performed while on unpaid leave could mean the difference between owing the employee either (a) nothing for a pay period or (b) his entire salary for that same pay period! With the prevalence of emails, text messages, and other communications between supervisors and employees these days, this is an easy issue to overlook. Supervisors should be cautioned accordingly.

In closing, employers should continue to monitor the CDC’s website for updates and announcements. Employers also should consult labor and employment counsel as specific issues and concerns arise within their company. This is especially true for issues that arise involving employees who are also within protected classes under federal, state, and/or local employment laws.

For your convenience and as a benefit of your NIA membership, the association’s legal services plan is available to assist you on questions related to COVID-19 and other labor and employment law issues that you encounter in your business. In addition to the free calls your plan already offers, Auman, Mahan & Furry has agreed to provide association members with one (1) free, 30-minute call on the topic of COVID-19 in March and April. There will be no charge to either the member or NIA. During that same time period, our firm will also provide the same free COVID-19 call to any company that contacts us and lets us know they were referred by an association member. To take advantage of this, please contact Matthew Bakota or any other member of Auman, Mahan & Furry’s Labor and Employment group, or Gary Auman, at 937-223-6003.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Commercial Building Code Compliance: A Look at the Evolution of Energy Codes and Commercial Building Envelopes

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and ASHRAE 90.1 are internationally recognized codes and standards used in the United States for building energy efficiency. Much like a vocabulary drill, we often hear the terms IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 discussed at industry meetings and see them written throughout the literature, but what do these designations actually mean? Furthermore, what are the implications of the latest IECC and ASHRAE 90.1 code cycle for future commercial building projects? What do you really need to know to ensure a project meets the newest envelope code requirements in your region? Before delving into specific building envelope updates, it is important to review the basics.

Differences between ASHRAE and IECC

First, both ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC establish minimum requirements for energy efficiency of buildings. Note that ASHRAE 90.1 is a standard of energy efficiency, not a code agency. IECC is a model energy code that references the ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Both ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC follow 3-year cycles, with IECC cycling 2 years behind ASHRAE 90.1. For example, IECC 2018 references ASHRAE 90.1-2016. IECC adopts the latest ASHRAE standard, plus any addenda and new data. The IECC also increases efficiencies in certain areas, which means that in some cases, the IECC can be more stringent than the ASHRAE standard. Both include heating, ventilation, lighting, water systems, and the building envelope for residential and commercial buildings.

This article focuses on the commercial building envelope requirements in the IECC 2018 and ASHRAE 90.1-2016 code cycle. In terms of specific updates, lighting and mechanicals have many changes and mandatory provisions that can be found in the published versions of both IECC and ASHRAE 90.1. IECC references ASHRAE as an alternative path in section C401.2 (Application). This allows a designer to use the ASHRAE standard in its entirety for compliance. If the ASHRAE standard is used, all envelope, lighting, and mechanicals would follow the ASHRAE standard in full; and any requirements within IECC shall not be used. The opposite is true if a designer chooses IECC. Because of this, understanding the requirements of both the ASHRAE standard and the IECC is paramount.

Compliance

Once a compliance path is determined (i.e., selection of the IECC or the ASHRAE standard), the first choice a designer must make is the building envelope. Both paths have climate zone requirements specific to each zone. Construction types also have specific requirements. For roofs, the choices include the following: insulation entirely above deck, metal buildings, attic, or other.

Wall construction types include the following: mass, metal building, steel frames, wood framed, and other. Floors, fenestrations, and daylighting are also all parts of the envelope; and each has specific requirements.

In regard to the IECC 2018 code and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, compliance is stringent; and both have in-place performance levels that have evolved over the 3-year cycles. IECC and ASHRAE both have 3 basic paths to compliance:

  1. Prescriptive method,
  2. Envelope trade-off, and
  3. Energy cost budget method.

The language is a bit different between the ASHRAE standard and the IECC, but the approach is similar.

Prescriptive method is just that; it entails meeting every U-value, R-value, and any other in-place performance requirements of any envelope assembly and component.

Envelope trade-off is typically demonstrated through COMcheck™, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) compliance software, which you can download for free at energycodes.gov). This option allows a designer to add performance in some areas that can serve as trade-offs for lesser performing areas. For example, you can add roof insulation to trade off wall insulation or door and window U-values. The roof is typically the largest area of a building, and quite economical to achieve performance requirements, thus making the envelope trade-off approach a desirable option for many builders. It is important to remember that IECC and ASHRAE have different trade-off methodologies.

The energy cost budget method is quite involved and can be demonstrated through OpenStudio®, DOE 2, Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics (BLAST), and EnergyPlus™ software. This approach requires all inputs for lighting, mechanicals, envelope, and many other data points. The final result of the energy cost budget method is to demonstrate compliance through reduced energy overall.

Mandatory Provisions

Mandatory provisions also evolved in the IECC 2018/ASHRAE 90.1-2016 cycle, with daylighting and air barriers receiving notable mentions. Most designers have been surprised by the language and requirements surrounding daylighting. Regardless of the path choices noted above, mandatory requirements must be met.

Both ASHRAE and IECC have implemented daylighting requirements in their standards/codes as mandatory. The requirements range from advanced lighting controls, limited amounts of lighting density power consumption, and mandatory 3% skylight inclusion on roof surfaces.

Designers may utilize a range of options to satisfy the daylighting requirement. Generally, a mixture of skylights and/or vertical fenestration can be used. There are varying quantities, depending on the project’s climate zone. Another
factor that may impact the properties of the skylights and vertical fenestration is lighting controls. With the addition of lighting controls, increased solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) and U-factors may be applied to the fenestration as a part
of the overall design.

Table C402.4 (from the IECC) indicates the skylight requirements for SHGC, ranging from .35 in climate zone 1 to .40 in climate zone 6. If the area covered by skylights is also in a “daylight responsive lighting control zone” within the building, C402.4.3.1 allows for the skylights to be further reduced to an SHGC of .60. Section 5.5.4.3 and 5.5.4.4 of ASHRAE 2016 further details the SHGC design criteria for daylighting materials.

There are very limited exemptions from the daylighting requirements in either IECC 2018 or ASHRAE 90.1-2016. ASHRAE 90.1-2016 requires daylighting, at reduced value, for semi-heated structures, too.

Air barriers are another major design consideration for code compliance. Though air barrier nomenclature has been included in the code literature as far back as IECC 2012 and ASHRAE 90.1-2010, much confusion surrounding air barrier requirements exists today. Section C402.5 (Air Leakage—Thermal Envelope) of IECC 2018 says it all: mandatory. In other words, air barriers are mandatory in the thermal envelope.

As insulation cavity thicknesses increase with code advancements, the location of the dew point is slowly migrating to within the cavity, instead of somewhere on the surface of the insulation facing, particularly for pre-engineered metal buildings. Air barriers greatly control the rate at which air and moisture migration occur though the insulation cavity.

Air barriers must be contained within the thermal envelope and can be installed on the interior, exterior surface, within the assembly, or any combination thereof. It is critical for air barriers to be continuous for all assemblies and across all joints in the assemblies.

An air barrier design can be based upon a material approach, such as the assemblies listed in section C402.5.1.2.1 of IECC 2018 or the assemblies referenced in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 5.4.3. ASHRAE 90.1-2016 does exempt semi-heated spaces in climate zones 0 through 6, and single wythe concrete masonry buildings in climate zone 2B, from the mandatory air barrier requirement. IECC 2018 has no such exemptions for air barriers, with the exception of low energy buildings outlined in C402.1.1.

Air barriers also can be verified/certified by means of mechanical testing, such as a blower door test. This compliance option tests air leakage of the entire building as a whole. Typically, a blower door is mounted to the frame of a walk-through door and is used to pull the air out of the building to lower the air pressure indoors. Then, the higher air pressure from outside enters the building through all unsealed openings. The differential is used to calculate the air infiltration rate of the building.

A blower door test is not meant to exempt the design from any construction method. A key consideration of blower door testing includes the fact that, once selected, you cannot opt-out and elect to undergo materials and assembly testing later. If a building fails the blower door test, all repairs must be made until it passes.

IECC mandatory air barrier and thermal provisions also include the fenestration Table C402.5.2.

Combined with the fenestration U-factor/SHGC requirements in Table C402.4, achieving full compliance can be difficult if the products do not conform to the tables, as outlined in IECC section C303.1.3 (see below).

If using the prescriptive method or trade-off approach, and labeled fenestrations cannot be provided, the code requires the default values shown in Table C303.1.3(1). Used in the trade-off approach, these values are very difficult to pass the overall envelope. The prescriptive approach does not allow the default values, and therefore must be labeled per code section C303.1.3.

Energy Code Resources

The resources most commonly used for energy code updates include the DOE, the Building Codes
Assistance Project, and the International CodeCouncil (ICC). For the code reference guides,visit ashrae.org and iccsafe.org.

Final Thoughts

In looking ahead at future cycles, no major changes are expected in the actual thermal envelope for commercial buildings. The mandatory provisions are the future cycle and will require actual blower door testing for air tightness. There are exemptions, but they are very limited. The primary reason for these provisions is simple: energy savings. When a new building is constructed with the thermal envelope requirements, it is not actually efficient if the building leaks air and there is no natural light to offset energy consumption with lighting and mechanicals.

Other options have been receiving attention lately that go beyond the codes outlined here, such as stretch codes and envelope commissioning. Stretch codes are current in some states, and each town, city, or jurisdiction would typically require and enforce compliance over the actual state code. These codes are generally written about 10% more energy efficient than the state code. Future stretch code increases are projected to be around 20% to 40%. Envelope commissioning options have several protocols and certification requirements during construction and through the completed design process. Once achieved, these buildings are certified to operate at a fixed cost on energy savings. The final goal is Net Zero for all buildings. Currently, residential and commercial buildings account for 40% of energy use in the United States (source: ase.org). Based on the overall state adoption of the new codes, the projected energy and carbon emissions savings are extensive, and carry the potential for a major impact on the future U.S. building landscape.

In summary, commercial energy codes have evolved quite a bit from their initial adoption years ago, and the landscape has become increasinglycomplex. The most recent code cycles carry more stringent building envelope performance requirements, which, ultimately, propel new innovationsand lead to more energy-efficient buildings.

Copyright statement

This article was published in the January 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author(s) of any article in Insulation Outlook are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIA. The appearance of an article, advertisement, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA. Every effort will be made to avoid the use or mention of specific product brand names in featured magazine articles.

NIA Sites > Insulation Outlook Magazine > Global

Utilizing Mineral Fiber Insulation to Slow the Spread of Fire in Commercial Buildings

Many factors influence the resilience of a commercial building, especially as it relates to protection against fire. A building’s design and the materials it is designed with play a critical role in the safety of building occupants during a fire event. Buildings today are equipped with complex fire safety measures, all of which should be considered and carefully planned during the early stages of designing a new building.

Fire protection measures typically fall into 2 categories: active and passive. When these measures are well planned and implemented, they can work together to slow or even halt the spread of fire. Active fire protection would be systems that require action or motion in the event of a fire, such as fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, sprinklers, and even firefighters. Passive fire protection involves measures put in place to slow down the spread of fire from one space to the next through walls, ceilings, floors, or even up the side of a building.

Insulation can serve as an effective passive fire protection measure. While insulation will not prevent or necessarily stop a fire from occurring, it can delay the spread of fire in most rated wall and floor/ceiling assemblies. While there are several types of insulation that are available, depending on application, to slow the spread of fire, including perlite, vermiculite, cellulose, ceramic fiber, microporous, this article will focus on mineral fiber. When planning for insulation to fulfill this role, here are 2 considerations to keep in mind.

Hourly Rating and Required Codes

The standard test for fire resistance is typically measured in time, or the duration a passive fire protection system can withstand a standard fire resistance test. Most areas within a building fall into the 1- or 2-hour rating, though longer ratings may also be required. The required rating is dependent on the type of construction, the type of occupancy, any special hazards in the building, and the criticality of a particular area within a building for life safety. For example, walls in stairwells may be rated higher than in other areas to allow building occupants more time to evacuate. Buildings like hospitals or prisons often require higher ratings, at least for certain sections of those buildings, to allow more time for evacuation or to allow occupants to shelter in place.

Fire-resistance tests are primarily developed and maintained by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), ASTM International (formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials), and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL). Some of the most common test methods are ASTM E119, Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials; UL 263 (equivalent to ASTM E119); and NFPA 285, Standard Fire Test Method for Evaluation of Fire Propagation Characteristics of Exterior Wall Assemblies Containing Combustible Components. When a wall or floor/ceiling system is tested against fire code requirements, it is most often pass or fail; there is no gray area.

While many exterior wall assemblies must be designed to deliver an hourly rating from ASTM E119 (or UL 263), or also to pass NFPA 285, there are other codes to be aware of. For example, the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) is a zone of transition between wildland and human development, an area that may have an increased risk of wildfires. In WUI zones, the standard for noncombustible and fire-resistant construction is higher than in other areas, due to the increased fire hazard. Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code contain additional standards and design parameters associated with construction in these areas.

Insulation Products to Delay the Spread of Fire

The delay of the spread of fire is when, during a fire, insulation stays in place within the wall assembly even after surrounding materials have deteriorated. Insulation materials made from rock wool, such as mineral wool, are more effective for fire protection when compared to others. It is noncombustible, meaning it will not ignite or burn when exposed to fire or extreme heat, and it typically has a melting point in excess of 2,000°F.

Fiber glass is another suitable insulation solution for slowing fire spread. While fiber glass will melt at a lower temperature than mineral wool, it is also noncombustible, and its typical melting point of 1,300°F is acceptable in most 1-hour rated assemblies.

There are other insulation products, including autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) and spray-on materials—typically a combination of mineral wool, perlite, vermiculite, cellulose, ceramic fiber, microporous, and cement applied to structural steel—that meet the standards in helping delay the spread of fire.

How Mineral Wool and Fiber Glass Work in Different Wall Assemblies

Building insulation can be installed in a few different places, both interior and exterior. Depending on where the product is placed, it can serve a different function in delaying the spread of fire. Interior or cavity insulation is insulation placed in walls, ceilings, floors, or even the concealed spaces between floors.

  • Depending on the design and the building structure, mineral wool is commonly used for interior walls and ceilings, not only for its fire safety capabilities but also because it delivers excellent sound control, thermal performance, and moisture resistance, as does fiber glass. It is also relatively simple to install and can be placed directly into the wall cavity without any fasteners (depending on the manufacturer).
  • Fiber glass batts and rolls are simple to install, cost effective, and durable, while still meeting noncombustibility requirements. Depending on the manufacturer, fiber glass batts also can be used in the interstitial cavity between the ceilings and floors of commercial buildings in lieu of installing sprinkler systems in these concealed spaces.

An advantage of both mineral wool and fiber glass is they do not burn easily, and because they provide fire resistance by slowing the flow of heat between the hot side (fire exposed) and cool side of a wall or floor/ceiling assembly. Slowing heat transfer helps to protect the gypsum, concrete, or other components, so the assembly maintains its integrity longer and allows occupants time to evacuate.

Additionally, mineral wool as exterior continuous insulation (CI) can help protect against the spread of fire up the outside of a building. Combustible components, such as water-resistive barriers (WRBs) or air barriers, or combustible claddings, can provide fuel for a fire to spread up from one floor on the outside of the wall, especially when a window is breached. Rainscreen exterior wall systems with mineral wool CI can be a viable solution, as this combination has been shown to resist this type of fire spread in NFPA 285 tests. Some systems have even been tested to incorporate the use of combustible claddings, like high-pressure or metal laminates, because of the protection provided by the mineral wool CI.

While there is insufficient official data to back its sole effectiveness, when mineral wool is included as CI on a wall assembly, some studies suggest the assemblies can be effective in slowing the spread of fire through the exterior wall.

Importance of Installation

The quality of the installation of any insulation product is perhaps the most important consideration, because without it, goals are not met, and the assembly may not pass the requirements of commercial building codes. A high-quality installation has no gaps or voids—areas typically sealed with sealant or spray foam. If unattended, these spaces will allow a fire to penetrate more easily from space to space.

Insulation that is haphazardly installed by being overly compressed into the cavity, or bent or folded, also will underperform in delaying the spread of fire because its R-value has been compromised. In short, poorly installed insulation will not pass code requirements; therefore, it is important to consult an insulation contractor and eliminate the need for future repairs or rework.

Insulation can play an important role in slowing the spread of fire in commercial buildings, and many considerations are involved in the decision-making process when selecting materials. Each building and planning process is different, each with its own code requirements. No matter the project, the safety of the building occupants and those around it remains top priority, and passive fire protection is an essential part of this protection.

Copyright statement

This article was published in the January 2020 issue of Insulation Outlook magazine. Copyright © 2020 National Insulation Association. All rights reserved. The contents of this website and Insulation Outlook magazine may not be reproduced in any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher and NIA. Any unauthorized  duplication is strictly prohibited and would violate NIA’s copyright and may violate other copyright agreements that NIA has with authors and partners. Contact publisher@insulation.org to reprint or reproduce this content.

Disclaimer: Unless specifically noted at the beginning of the article, the content, calculations, and opinions expressed by the author(s) of any article in Insulation Outlook are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NIA. The appearance of an article, advertisement, and/or product or service information in Insulation Outlook does not constitute an endorsement of such products or services by NIA. Every effort will be made to avoid the use or mention of specific product brand names in featured magazine articles.