BILL ANALYSIS
Bill No: AB
635
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Roderick D. Wright, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
Staff Analysis
AB 635 Author: V. Manuel Perez
As Amended: April 2, 2009
Hearing Date: July 8, 2009
Consultant: Chris Lindstrom
SUBJECT
Fire protection: air purifying devices.
DESCRIPTION
AB 635 provides that a state or local agency, including a
city, county, city and county, or district, shall not
prohibit a firefighter from using an air purifying device
during a wildland fire.
EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes the State Board of Fire Services
in the Office of the State Fire Marshal.
Existing law requires the Board to recommend the
establishment of minimum standards with respect to
specified elements of fire protection, including fire
equipment.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of the bill. According to the sponsor, California
State Firefighters Association, AB 635 "would provide
firefighters the right to wear respiratory protection, in
the form of an anti-pollution scarf and other related
accessories, during the course of their duty in fighting or
controlling outdoor wildfires (i.e., woodlands, forests,
grasslands, brush, and prairies). The use of air purifying
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 2
respirators could reduce harmful constituent exposures
listed under the California Division of Occupational Safety
and Health (CalOSHA) standards to more acceptable levels
for firefighters to enhance their safety."
Background. Wildfires are a growing hazard in most regions
of the United States, especially in California. In the
past few years, California has seen some devastating
wildfires that have threatened life and property.
Firefighters face varying levels of risk for smoke
inhalation, which depends on the intensity of the fire,
their proximity to the fire, their activity, weather
conditions, and the terrain. Such inhalation exposes them
to smoke, gases, and even particulate matter that are
deemed extremely harmful to a person's health and well
being.
Smoke is composed mainly of carbon dioxide, water vapor,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, nitrogen
oxides, trace minerals, and thousands of other compounds.
Particulates are the principle pollutant of concern,
because they can be inhaled into the deepest recesses of
the lungs. Hot smoke and gases are another concern because
they can burn the passages of the nose, airways, and lungs.
Additionally, higher levels of carbon monoxide exposure
can also lead to headaches, dizziness, visual impairment,
and death.
Any equipment used by firefighters, while performing their
duties, must first be approved by regulatory agencies.
Examples of regulatory agencies for firefighters are the
CalOSHA, Department of Weights and Measures, and the
California State Fire Marshall. CalOSHA creates standards
for safety equipment and develops safety procedures for
specific workplace environments that are deemed hazardous.
CalOSHA Regulation - California Code of Regulations. Title
8. 5144. Respiratory Protection. CalOSHA regulations
(link: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/5144.html ) related to
respiratory protection provides, "Respirators shall be
provided by the employer when such equipment is necessary
to protect the health of the employee. The employer shall
provide the respirators which are applicable and suitable
for the purpose intended. The employer shall be
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 3
responsible for the establishment and maintenance of a
respiratory protection program." The respiratory
protection program must contain worksite-specific
procedures and elements for required respirator use. The
program may allow for the voluntary use of a respirator if
the employer determines that such respirator use will not
in itself create a hazard.
CALFIRE Memorandum - wildland facial protector (not a
respirator). According to CALFIRE, CalOSHA's regulations
for respiratory protection are based on Permissible
Exposure Limits (PEL). The PEL is defined as the maximum
average concentration of a given airborne contaminant that
a worker can be exposed to for an 8-hour period. Analysis
of breathing zone air for wildland firefighters shows that
the concentrations of airborne contaminants exceed the PEL
less than 5% of the time. Because PELs for wildland
firefighting are relatively low, smoke exposure has been
managed through work practice controls. No national
respiratory protection standard has been developed yet for
wildland firefighting.
On December 7, 2000, CALFIRE issued a memorandum to its
department personnel authorizing the use of a supplemental,
commercially-manufactured wildland facial protector for
critical wildland fire situations. The goal was to improve
the survivability of employees should they be overrun by
fire.
The memo states that the wildland facial protector is not a
respirator nor is it a required item. It is a permitted
option for the employee and the option will only be used
when the employee encounters critical fire behavior and
potential entrapment situations.
Further, the memo states that wildland facial protectors
must be used within their design capabilities and
limitations. Literature accompanying the product should be
read and understood by all users. Finally, the memo states
that it is the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure
that employees using the facial protectors are
knowledgeable of their use and limitations, as well as,
their benefits.
CALFIRE's memo did not authorize the voluntary use of a
respirator, although it did authorize the voluntary use of
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 4
specific personal protection equipment for wildland fires
consistent with CalOSHA requirements.
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) efforts. Due to the
sometimes erratic and unpredictable nature of wildland
fires, firefighters can find themselves trapped in
situations where they need to escape from the heat and/or
smoke. There is a need for an "escape use" respirator for
wildland firefighting, however, no such design standard has
been developed. NFPA is in the process of developing a
proposed new Standard for Respiratory Protection for
Wildland Fire Fighting Operations. The new standard is
scheduled to be completed in 2011 and would become the
first national standard for respirators used for wildland
firefighting.
Arguments in support. The sponsor states, "Currently,
there is no explicit statute that allows firefighters to
use air purifying respiratory devices while battling a
wildland fire. Due to the lack of authorization from the
Legislature to use air purifying devices, certain fire
departments have prohibited their firefighters from
properly equipping themselves. This holds true even if the
firefighter has purchased a purifying device. AB 635 does
not mandate firefighters to use air purifying devices
during a wildland fire. It simply provides our state's
firefighters with the option to use such devices if they
wish to further protect themselves."
Arguments in opposition. The California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) writes, "CALFIRE is
deeply committed to the protection of its employees;
however, there are currently no accepted studies,
standards, or regulations demonstrating the safe use,
efficiency, or adverse effects of using air purifying
devices available on the open market. It is not known if
more critical consequences may arise if and when these
devices are utilized. These devices could cause visual
obscurity, communication impedance, or even increased
physiological stresses, which could increase the chances of
the wearer suffering a cardiac related event.
"The topic of air purifying devices has long been a debated
one for several reasons. The filters used on these devices
have no measuring mechanism that identifies when the filter
has limited or no filtering ability. There is no gauge to
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 5
measure its efficiency and no warning system to alert the
wearer when it can no longer filter out potentially
dangerous toxins. The physiological effects of wearing
such a device may also create a greater hazard and subject
the wearer to an increased risk of injury or death.
"The number one killer of firefighters in the United States
is sudden cardiac death. Wearing such a device while
performing the necessary arduous work to control a wildland
fire would restrict breathing, require a greater degree of
effort to breathe in air through the filtering device and
would most certainly result in an increased rate of
breathing, increased body temperature, increased heart rate
and increased blood pressure, all of which expose the
wearer to a higher risk of experiencing a cardiac related
event.
"Also, Federal and State OSHA regulations require employers
to provide any and all forms of Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) to its employees in order to adequately
protect them from the hazards they will be exposed to.
Employers who choose to allow their employees to purchase
and utilize their own PPE are still subject to the
requirements of training, inspecting, and maintaining the
equipment. There is no reasonable expectation, given the
number of make and models of these devices currently
available on the market, that an employer of over 6,000
firefighters could effectively coordinate such a task."
Staff comments. (1) Air purifying device. There is no
definition of an "air purifying device" in CalOSHA or NIOSH
(National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety)
regulations. The closest definition in existence is
CalOHSA's and NIOSH's definitions for an "Air Purifying
Respirator" which reads, "A respirator with an
air-purifying filter, cartridge, or canister that removes
specific air contaminants by passing ambient air through
the air-purifying element."
Additionally, under the "purpose of the bill" section of
the analysis, the sponsor references "an anti-pollution
scarf and other related accessories." There are many
different types of protective scarves - some are merely
fitted bandanas, some are bandanas with a pouch in front to
insert a filter, and some go over respiratory equipment.
The more common terms for these devices are face mask or
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 6
face protector.
As such, the term "air purifying device" could be broadly
interpreted and many pieces of equipment, both proven or
unproven, could be construed to fit within the parameters
of the bill. The author may wish to consider defining the
term "air purifying device" to narrow the scope of the
bill .
(2) Devices should meet some minimum safety performance
standard. As currently written, there is no requirement
that the air purifying device, as broadly interpreted as
this term may be, must meet some minimum safety performance
standards. As such, the use of some devices may actually
create a false sense of security for the firefighter and
may actually place the firefighter, his colleagues, and
potentially, the general public at greater risk of harm.
In addition to the potential additional risk to the
firefighter and others, it may create liability issues.
For example, what liability would the state or local agency
incur from not stopping the use of equipment that it should
have reasonably known was not effective? Additionally, if
a firefighter is injured and the cause is tied to the use
of an unauthorized air purifying device, what ramifications
would it have on the firefighter's health coverage, medical
and employment benefits or unemployment insurance? The
author may wish to specify that the devices must at least
meet some government or industry recognized standards for
safety .
(3) Require employers to establish policies and procedures
for training, inspecting and maintaining the equipment used
in wildland firefighting operations. There is a constant
introduction of new products into the market. It is the
employer's responsibility to ensure that unsafe products
are not introduced into the workplace. In addition to
ensuring the safety of its employees and the general
public, the employer has a financial stake because they are
exposed to worker's compensation costs for occupationally
related illnesses and injuries. Federal and State OSHA
regulations require employers to provide any and all forms
of Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) to its employees in
order to adequately protect them from the hazards to which
they will be exposed. According to CALFIRE, employers who
choose to allow their employees to purchase and utilize
AB 635 (V. Manuel Perez) continued
Page 7
their own PPE are still subject to the requirements of
training, inspecting, and maintaining the equipment. The
author may wish to consider language to require the
employer to establish policies and procedures for training,
inspecting, and maintaining the equipment used in wildland
firefighting operations .
SUPPORT: As of July 6, 2009:
California State Firefighters' Association, Inc. (sponsor)
OPPOSE: As of July 6, 2009:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
DUAL REFERRAL: Senate Appropriations Committee
FISCAL COMMITTEE: No.
**********