Senate committee hears SB260 to direct Nevada OSHA to write wildfire‑smoke protections for outdoor workers

Sen. Edgar Flores (D‑District 2) and Jackie Spicer of the Nevada Environmental Justice Coalition told the Senate Finance Committee that Senate Bill 260 would direct the Division of Industrial Relations (Nevada OSHA) to develop regulations requiring employers to monitor air quality during wildfire smoke events and reduce employees’ exposure when levels meet certain triggers.

Flores said the bill grew from an initial, broader approach to set prescriptive rules and instead was revised after many stakeholder meetings so OSHA can craft industry‑specific regulations. Jackie Spicer said the amended bill would ask Nevada OSHA to set measures for employers when the Air Quality Index (AQI) reaches around 50 and to require stronger controls at or above 200. Spicer told the committee that OSHA would also determine at what AQI employers must not permit outdoor workers to perform critical tasks.

Spicer emphasized that the bill aims to establish a standard across industries (while allowing OSHA to tailor rules) and includes provisions for a communication system and training so employees know when hazardous air quality levels are reached and the health risks of not using personal protective equipment. Sponsors said most industries already take some protective steps; the intent is to reach workplaces that do not currently provide adequate protection.

The committee discussed exemptions and fiscal notes at length. Sponsors said the conceptual amendment exempts operators of mines, commercial truck drivers, providers of emergency services, entities acting under a state of emergency, and businesses with 10 or fewer employees. Jackie Spicer and Sen. Flores said they removed many fiscal notes; two fiscal notes remain from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR), which said they expect additional costs for inspectors, communications equipment, training and personal protective equipment if rules require those measures for field staff.

Agency witnesses explained current practices and concerns. Nevada Department of Agriculture Director Goikachia said the department has many field inspectors who must continue essential inspections even during prolonged smoke events and that providing protective gear, radios or backfill staff could create a significant fiscal impact. DCNR Deputy Director Dominique Echegoian told the committee that some divisions are exempt because they provide emergency services, but many field staff in conservation, water resources and other programs do not have work phones or radios and could face increased communication costs if regulations require employer communication systems. Both agencies said the conceptual amendment narrowed who must develop programs (OSHA) but that employers will still need to implement any adopted rules, generating possible costs.

Labor and environmental groups testified in support. Ross Kinson of the Northern Nevada Central Labor Council and Carlos Hernandez of the Nevada State AFL‑CIO said outdoor workers in Northern Nevada regularly face hazardous smoke and pushed for protections; Cassie Charles of AFSCME and Olivia Tanager of the Sierra Club also supported the bill and noted low‑cost monitoring options. The Nevada Policy group (opposition) argued the rulemaking could impose costly regulatory burdens on businesses.

Several committee members asked whether the bill would affect firefighters and other emergency responders; sponsors emphasized that emergency services and entities under a state emergency declaration are exempt from the bill because those groups already follow higher federal standards. Senators also asked follow‑up questions about monitoring methods (websites vs. purchased monitors), whether N95 masks would be required, and how OSHA would tailor rules by industry. Sponsors repeatedly said the bill intentionally sends the specifics to OSHA so stakeholders can determine practical, industry‑specific solutions rather than the Legislature prescribing equipment and thresholds.

Committee members were also briefed on a proposed conceptual amendment that removes prescriptive program language, moves monitoring and program details to OSHA guidance, clarifies definitions (for example, what constitutes an outdoor environment), and states that the bill does not alter workers’ compensation laws. No final action was taken at the hearing; the committee closed the SB260 hearing after questions and testimony.