BILL ANALYSIS
AB 838
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 838 (Swanson) - As Introduced: February 26, 2009
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires the Occupational Safety and Health Board
(Board) to adopt a standard for indoor heat illness prevention.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Development of a standard for indoor heat illness prevention
would cost about $75,000.
2)If the standards require employers to maintain written
procedures relating to prevention and treatment of heat
exhaustion, state employers would incur one-time costs -
potentially exceeding $100,000, to develop and publish the
standards.
COMMENTS
1)Background. Workers in a variety of industries are exposed to
hot environments. These include warehouses, foundries, brick
firing and ceramics operations, glass products manufacturing
plants, utilities, restaurant kitchens, laundries, food
canneries, smelters, and steam tunnels. Employers are under no
current regulatory obligation to provide water, a cool place
to rest, or any other protective services for heat illness in
indoor working environments.
AB 805 (Chu) was introduced in the 2005-06 session to address
heat illness after extremely hot temperatures in July 2005
caused an unusual number of occupational heat-related
illnesses and deaths in the agricultural industry. The bill
made it to the Senate floor, but was never heard. However,
AB 838
Page 2
partly as a result of this legislative push for regulatory
action, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal-OSHA) promulgated an outdoor heat illness prevention
regulation. The regulation requires all employers with outdoor
worksites to provide heat illness prevention training to their
employees, provide adequate amounts of fresh water and access
to shade, and develop written procedures for complying with
the regulation. These regulations, however, do not apply to
indoor worksites.
In 2007, AB 1045 (Richardson) was introduced to require the
Board to adopt a standard for indoor heat illness prevention
and prescribed certain requirements for that standard. The
bill mandated the standard to require employers to establish,
implement, and maintain written procedures to recognize the
symptoms of, assure medical treatment for, and prevent the
occurrence of, heat illness, and specified provisions to be
included in those written procedures. AB 1045 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger, who indicated that a review within
Cal-OSHA of the standards was underway and that indoor
standard, like the outdoor standards, should be developed
through the regulatory process, free from legislative
interference.
However, in July 2007, the Division of Occupational Safety and
Health (DOSH) announced that it would not be seeking a
regulatory requirement specifically applicable to heat illness
in indoor places of employment, indicating that reengaging in
a controversial rulemaking process for indoor heat standards
would detract from other regulatory efforts of the board.
Instead, DOSH prepared a flyer entitled, "Cal/OSHA Heat
Illness Prevention for Indoor Working Environments"
2)Rationale. Supporters (AFSCME and numerous other employee
representatives) argue that an effective approach to
heat-related illness is vital to protect the lives of
California workers. They assert that the key to preventing
heat-related illness is to train employers and workers on how
to identify heat related hazards and to implement proper
controls and work practices.
3)Opponents (including the California Chamber of Commerce other
business associations) argue that the existing illness and
prevention program (IIPP) requires employers to develop a
AB 838
Page 3
safety program to identify and mitigate safety hazards in the
workplace, and to train employees about the hazards. They
further assert that indoor heat exposure is a relevant hazard
covered by the IIPP program in workplaces where heat is an
issue, and that creating yet another set of regulations to
apply to all employers, even where excessive heat exposure is
not present, would impose an unnecessary burden on employers.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081