Serving

Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, Bishop,
Oakland, Sacramento, Salinas, San Jose,
San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara

PUBLICATIONS

 

INDUSTRIAL SMOKE EXPOSURE

THE ARRIVAL OF NEW REGULATIONS ADDRESSING HAZARDOUS WILDFIRE SMOKE EXPOSURE

By Vito Michael Enrico Mazzei II

 

In July of 2019, the Department of Industrial Relations issued an official “NOTICE OF PROPOSED EMERGENCY ACTION BY THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS BOARD REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 8, NEW SECTION 5141.1 PROTECTION FROM WILDFIRE SMOKE.”


The proposal added four areas of regulation regarding Harmful Wildfire Smoke, upon Employers: 1) Identification Regulations; 2) Warning System Regulations; 3) Training Regulations; and 4) Protection and Ramification Regulations.

Analysis of Pending Requirements Under the Proposal

Identification Regulations

One of the first lines of proposed defenses will be an increased or heightened state of awareness as to identification of the presence of “Unhealthy” air. Essentially, employers would be tasked with the responsibility of identifying harmful exposure to airborne particulate matter from wildfire smoke before each shift, and periodically thereafter, by checking the air quality for particulates smaller than 2.5 microns, or an AQI higher than 150, in regions where workers are located.

However, these actions would only be required when there is a reasonable expectancy that an employee may be exposed to “Unhealthy” air quality. “Unhealthy” status itself could be reasonably determined by employer access to information provided by agencies such as: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; AirNow website; California Air Resources Board; Air Pollution Control Districts; Air Quality Management Districts; and/or Wildland Fire Air Quality Response Program of the U.S. Forest Service. The key thing to remember here is that this burden would not be imposed on the employer unless there is a legitimate and realistic possibility that the employees could be exposed to hazardous smoke from wildfires.

Warning System Regulations

Another invaluable element to these proposals is the actual dissemination of this information to the employees in the form of a warning. Employers will be tasked with the responsibility of relaying their findings to the employee, so they are put on proper notice of the “Unhealthy” air hazards at hand.

Employers would need to inform employees of: Natural or Man Caused conditions that could or have already worsened the air quality in their vicinity; AOI Index readings / PM2.5 levels of particulates and microns; and employers would be tasked with encouraging their own employees to have a system amongst themselves to warn the employer in return of “Unhealthy” air conditions, in the event an employer-level system of identification has failed.

Training Regulations

Of course, with the implementation of any new identification systems, or streams of communication, training on their proper use would be required. Specifically, employers would not only need to train themselves, but their employees in relation to these new systems as well.

Employees would need to be trained as to their right to seek medical treatment in relation to “Unhealthy” air side effects, and where they could go to receive such treatment. The workers would need firsthand knowledge on how to take AQI Readings. Employers would need to train employees on the new Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of what to do should there be the need for an emergency evacuation of the outdoor or indoor facility due to “Unhealthy” air conditions.


This would also mean comprehensive training on any and all “Unhealthy” air Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs). Moreover, employers would need to educate employees on both the short-term and long-term effects of prolonged exposure to wildfire smoke and “Unhealthy” air conditions. As of now, additional training requirements are still up for proposal.

Protection and Ramification Regulations

Lastly, and notwithstanding the above, a plan is not worth much if there are no proposals for actual protection methodologies or ramifications. Luckily here, Cal/OSHA has proposed some protections and preventative steps to be taken.

When it comes down to protecting the body against foreign and harmful substances or situations, Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) is an easy first line of defense. When the employees are reasonably likely to be exposed to the hazardous effects of wildfire smoke, the employers would then be charged with the responsibility of providing Personal Protective Equipment to remove or significantly reduce employee exposure to wildfire smoke.

This could include air scrubbers, respirators, removal of the employee to a safe zone, and possibly an altogether close of operations until such time the work zone has become safe once again.



Final Thoughts

As the proposal sits, there are still no final rules or regulations on the books yet. However, due to the comprehensive proposal currently on the legislative floor, it will only be a matter of time until we have black letter law referencing this topic.

Given the myriad of potential litigation issues that could conceivably come forth from this topic, comprehensive employer level documentation showing compliance with the four above regulation sections will be a crucial factor in defending these claims. Lastly, a thorough investigation into applicant’s medical background to check for possible pre-existing respiratory disorders will be a vital line of defense.



ARTICLES

• Industrial Smoke Exposure - The Arrival of New Regulations

• Catastrophic Injuries and the Ensuing Psych Litigation - Kris Wilson V. State of CA Cal Fire

• Senate Bill 542 Seeks to Expand Coverage For Certain Firefighting Personnel and Peace Officers

• RTW Form Not a Basis to Deny Voucher

• The Intoxication Defense is Not Always Affirmative

• King Decision and Exclusive Remedy Rule

• Medical Providers Using New Tactic to Challenge Past Bills

• Risk Factors and Apportionment City of Pealuma (Lindh) v. WCAB

• Dynamex Does Not Actually Apply to Workers’ Compensation… or Does It?

• How and Why to Establish the Validity of a Medical Provider Network at Trial

• Attorney Client Privilege & Work Product Doctrine

• The Demise of Vocational Rehabilitation Reports Post 01-01-2013

• Is The Combined Values Chart Rebuttable?

• Panel Dispute Strategy


• Changes To Utilization Review And Independent Medical Review as of 1-1-18

• Labor Code §4903.8(b) - Lien Litigation

• Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel

• City of Jackson v. WCAB (Rice)

• Jaime Simmons v. Just Wingin’ It, Inc.

• Maxham v. SCIF

• Senate Bill 11/60/Lien Anti-Fraud Provisions and Utilization Review Changes

• The Post-Termination Defense

• Penalties Assessed Under Labor Code Section 5814

• New California Law Establishes Shared Liability Between Employer & Labor Contractor

• Rulings Concerning Medical Treatment Disputes

• Cannon Appellate Decision and The Cannon Ball Effect It Will Have

• The Beginning and Ending of Temporary Disability

• Medical Provider Network Changes

• New Lien Regulations

• Y&R Prevails Against Lien Claimants

• Want to know what the applicant is really up to?

• New En banc decision from WCAB allows Defendant's more Discovery

• A First-Year Associate's Perspective on Workers' Compensation in California

• An Alternative Strategy for Protection against Illegitimate Treating Practices

• TTD & PD Rates for Seasonal Employees

• Labor Code 4658(d)(3)(A)

• Y&R Obtains Take-Nothing from WCAB

© Copyright 2018 Yrulegui & Roberts

Home     About     Contact     Privacy Policy