Assembly Standing Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee hearing for Tuesday, March 10th. Sergeants, if you could please call the absent members. So, we will be hearing four measures today with one measure on consent. Our committee's policies for testimony in today's hearing are as follows.

Primary witnesses and support must be those accompanying the author or who otherwise have registered a support position with the committee. Primary witnesses in opposition must have their opposition registered with the committee as well. Primary witness testimony is limited to two witnesses in support and two in opposition. Each witness will have two minutes to give their testimony.

All additional witnesses will be limited to stating their name, organization, if they represent one, and their position on the bill. Also want to note that we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the committee's website. So, again, thank you, everyone, for being here. I believe we have a quorum.

Why don't we go ahead and establish that with the role.

For the purposes of establishing a quorum, I will call the roll.

[Role Call]

Great. We're ready to go. Why don't we start by taking up the consent calendar? Do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion. Bauer.-Kahan. Second. Mckinnor. Great. Let's go ahead and call the roll on consent.

On the proposed consent calendar is item number five, AB 617, authored by Assemblymember Alanis. Do pass to the Committee on Appropriation. Connolly.

[Roll call]

So that matter is approved, and we will go ahead and move to File item number one, AB 604. Assemblymember Stephanie, if you could come forward on your bill dealing with bisphenols in paper receipts. Welcome.

Thank you. Let's go. Great.

You're off to a good start.

I like to hear. Shall I proceed? Great. Thank you, Chair. Today I'm presenting AB1604. I really want to say I appreciate the work of the Committee, and we'll be accepting the amendment, so thank you for that.

And I would also like to acknowledge the work of the prior author of this, former Assemblymember, Phil Ting, who championed the previous iterations of this Bill. AB1604 would prohibit the use of bisphenol A in paper receipts by January 12027 and all bisphenol chemicals, BPS, in paper receipts by January 1, 2028.

Receipts are known to generate millions of pounds of waste and billions of pounds of carbon dioxide per year. These receipts that can't be. These are receipts that can't be recycled. They contaminate paper and are extremely harmful to human health. Handling receipts on a day to day basis is known to pose high exposure to BPA and bps.

People who handle receipts every day, and especially cashiers, are exposed to these chemicals over and over again. And studies have linked this exposure to breast cancer and other serious health risks. No one should face higher cancer risk just for doing their job or out there buying groceries.

And it's time that we have our businesses and manufacturers switch to safer alternatives. And by removing bisphenols from receipts, this Bill will cut daily exposure to these harmful chemicals, protect workers and consumers, and keep our recycling systems clean. And with me today we have Nancy Buhmeyer with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians against Waste.

Welcome.

Thank you very much and good afternoon. Chair and Members Nancy Biermeier, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. And thank you also to the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. And especially thank you to Assemblymember Stephanie for your leadership on to ban bisphenols in thermal receipt paper.

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners is a science based organization working to prevent breast cancer by reducing exposure to chemicals that have been linked to the disease. Bisphenol A or bpa, is one of the best known hazardous chemicals. And today many products are labeled BPA free.

Unfortunately, BPA is often replaced with a range of similar chemicals, BPs and BPF and so on, that share the same basic structure and many of the same health concerns. That is exactly what happened with Receipt paper. In 2023, a report found that BPA had largely been replaced with BPS, an example of what scientists call regrettable substitution.

Less than 1% of the receipts tested contained BPA. Nearly 80% contained BPS. Although these substitutes are less studied, the evidence increasingly shows the entire class of bisphenols can disrupt hormones and harm health. Research links exposure to increased risk of asthma and hyperactivity in children, cardiovascular disease, fertility problems, obesity, diabetes, breast and other cancers in adults.

Bisphenols are absorbed through the skin when handling receipts. This exposure affects all consumers, but the greatest risk is for cashiers. Occupational studies show higher levels of BPA and BPS in cashiers. Cashiers are overwhelmingly low income women of childbearing age. 70% are women, 76% in their reproductive years.

Reducing exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is especially important during these years because of the risk during pregnancy. The good news is that safer alternatives already exist. The same 2023 study found 20% of receipts tested contained no bisphenols at all. It's time to remove this entire class of toxic chemicals from receipt paper.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste and we are really proud to co-sponsor AB1604 with BCPP. We think that this bill addresses a significant source of toxic chemical exposure and waste stream contamination at the source, which is intentionally added bisphenols in thermal receipt paper.

From a waste and recycling perspective, we see this as really smart source reduction. Thermal receipt paper has long been problematic for recycling because the chemical coating contaminates paper fiber streams and can introduce hazardous substances into recycled pulp, which has been detected in recycled paper products like napkins and tissues.

Removing these chemicals at the design stage is far more effective than trying to manage them once they enter the waste stream. And this bill is not without precedent. Policy momentum is already moving in this direction across the United States and internationally.

Governments have increasingly recognized that bisphenols do not belong in receipt paper and the European Union restricted BPA and thermal receipts beginning back in 2020. States such as Washington have recently adopted a broader class based approach to addressing bisphenols in thermal paper, which is exactly the sort of momentum that AB1604 builds on.

Safer alternatives are already widely available on the market and recent analyses show that non bisphenol receipt technologies are increasing steadily, demonstrating that viable alternatives exist and are scaling. This bill provides a clear transition by phasing out BPA and receipts beginning in 2027 and all intentionally added bisphenols by 2028.

AB1604 represents the straightforward principle that when safer alternatives exist and science points clearly in one direction, it makes sense to move away from unnecessary toxic exposure. This bill protects workers, consumers, and the integrity of our recycling system. And we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional nembers of the public in support of the bill, come on up at this point.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice of Choice Advocacy in support of this bill.

Good afternoon. Mandy Strello on behalf of the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, San Francisco Baykeeper, Santa Cruz Climate Action Network, Climate Reality Project, the Orange County County Health Coalition, Clean Water Action, Clean Earth for Kids Friends Committee of legislation, 350 Bay Area, and 350 Contra Costa County. Thank you.

Dr. Pam O'dell, Climate Action California in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lydia Yan on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility L.A., Sunrise Bay Area, Earthday.org, and The Last Plastic Straw. Thank you.

Sophie Jansen, on behalf of the American Sustainable Business Network, representing over 200,000 businesses in all 50 states, supports AB1604 to better protect the health of our employees and our customers.

Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to AB1604? Seen no opposition. Okay, we'll bring it back. Any questions? Comments from committee members? Assemblymember?

Well, I want to thank the assemblymember from San Francisco for bringing this. It is a long-held San Francisco tradition, and I hope you have more success than your predecessor. And I think not dressing your staff up as a receipt is a great first step, but I love this.

The first time I heard this bill on this Committee, when it was a selling Member of Ting's, I said, I happen to know this was in receipts and did not let my children hold their seats with. Anyone with a toddler knows they will grab that receipt out of your hand and rub it all over themselves.

And it actually is not a healthy choice. But most people don't even know that. And I know many retailers are already complying with this. So this is not out of reach or out possibility. So hopefully this will be bipartisan and easy for you. But with that, I'm happy to support it today. Thank you.

Other comments, questions? Seeing none. Okay, we have a motion. And second, and this is a I reco from the chair. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

All right, thank you and thanks for bringing this forward. Yeah. Let's go ahead and do the roll call.

All right, this is File item number one. AB1604, authored by Assemblymember Stefani. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Judiciary. Connolly.

[Roll call]

Great. That matter passes. We're gonna leave it open for absent Members. Congrats. Okay, we're going to move to file item 2. Assembly Member Harabedian, please come forward with AB 1642 relating to wildfires.

Oh, well, thank you. That's exactly I want to start. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll wait for the second. That's fine. We'll testify first. We'll testify first. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. First of all, to the staff for the very thorough staff report.

It brought me back to little ptsd, high school chemistry, which wasn't a very strong class for me. And it also just made me realize I'm not smart enough to be on this Committee. But it was great. And I've talked to all of you about this Bill. This Bill. Bills are like children.

You never want to pick your favorite. But I'm not sure I have a more important Bill that I've ever run or that I will run. And that's because of what our community has gone through with the Eden fire. Many residents have gone through a lot trying to get back from their homes.

And what we're finding out is during that struggle, and through that struggle, folks are being forced to move back into homes with serious smoke damage where post remediation there are still high level, high levels of contaminants, lead, ash and other contaminants that you'll find in urban wildfire.

And the issue is there really, and what's become painfully clear is that there are no scientific standards in the state of California, despite the many urban wildfires that we've seen, to determine what is safe and what conditions should individuals dealing with urban wildfire, what is safe for them to move back into their homes, their workplace and their schools.

There have been articles written by the New York Times and a number of different publications that have documented this that individuals who have had remediation done have moved back into their homes. Testing has been done and lead and asbestos have been upwards of 60 times the rate that are safe for humans to live in.

And the problem is that there's no certainty, there's no test or standard to point to, to say that this is the objective truth. And so what AB 1642 does is really just two elegant, simple things.

It's what contaminants do we test for after a wui wildland urban interface wildfire and to what contamination levels are safe for an individual to move back into their home, workplace or school. And what we want is experts, scientists actually making those determinations full stop. And that's why we are here presenting this Bill.

And we are asking DTSC, Department of Toxic Substances Control along with OEHHA to develop these standards. And luckily, because of thousands of scientific studies that have been conducted, we know the safe levels for lead and asbestos. And so we want emergency rulemaking to actually establish that into law.

But then we also are asking the departments and the offices to develop other standards for other contaminants that are found in urban wildfires. With me today. I've talked too long.

I have a CalTech professor here who really should be doing most of the talking but from Caltech is Dr. Francois Tissot, who's going to provide some testimony and Jayne Lan Patel, who is a Member of the Eaton Fire Residents United, who has been instrumental in this Bill. So I will kick it to them for further testimony.

Thank you. My name is Francois Tissot. I'm a professor of geochemistry at CalTech where my research group uses specialized instruments to measure the concentration of elements in samples. I'm also an Eaton fire survivor. After the fire, I found very little information to assess the risk of returning to potentially contaminated homes.

My lab and I therefore started working on this problem. We have studied the composition of dust found inside homes and structures. We have measured the concentration of most metals, including lead. Our results reveal high levels of heavy metals, particularly lead, in the dust collected in standing homes in Altadena, but also much further than expected.

Several miles downwind of the burn area, contamination was highest near entry points, up to 30 times the EPA limit. And about 10% of the clean surfaces were still above the EPA limit. An overabundance of evidence from thousands of studies shows that lead exposure has dramatic health effect, especially on children. At high levels, exposure is lethal.

At lower levels, it results in impaired cognitive development, skeletal issues, cardiovascular issues as well as. We've also observed elevated amounts of other heavy metals such as antimony, zinc, cadmium, chromium or arsenic in the burn area and downwind. Each of these have their own impact on the human body. Arsenic is a potent carcinogenic agent.

Cadmium causes damages to the kidney, the lungs and the bones. The research shows that we have a major gap in the risk assessment and remediation of the smoke damage by WUI fires and urban fires. First, we lack established standards for clearance for many of the toxic contaminants that are released by the fire.

Second, even for lead and asbestos, which have clearly established clearance guidelines, the Eaton fire has revealed a lack of clarity over when testing should be required. These issues have endangered the local community and highlight the need for a clear science based response protocol following WUI and urban fires where the fire fuel contains toxic materials.

AB 1642 provides such a framework and I respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you. My name is Jane Lawton Potel. I am a founder and Executive Director of Eaton Fire Residents United and I am an Eaton fire survivor. We didn't start EFRU as advocates.

We started it because we needed to find out what was in the ash covering our yards and our homes, our schools, our parks and our community spaces. And we needed to know how to Return home safely.

We are here on behalf of thousands of residents whose homes are still standing but are full of dangerous, poisonous contaminants left over from the fire. One of our neighbors, Billy Malone, saved his home just yards away from the burn scar, but it suffered severe smoke damage.

Billy had remediation company come to his home to do cleanup and followed up with testing. After finding lead, the remediation company returned and did another round of cleanup. But once again, after testing, they found lead. Billy's wife Nina is disabled and the smoke and debris in their home is making her illness worse.

But instead of ensuring remediation was completed successfully, his insurance company says they're done paying for anything. Now Billy and Nina are trying to clean their home by themselves while living there and ingesting contaminants every day. We've heard countless stories.

Just like Billy and Nina, families are being financially forced back into homes that have never been properly tested or remediated. Children are sleeping in rooms that have not been cleared. Insurance carriers stall on approving testing and cleanup while temporary housing coverage quietly depletes. By the time families need it most, it is all gone.

And by then we have nowhere else to go without a standard for when it's safe to return to a home covered in WUI fire ash. Every home safety assessment is a negotiation, not a scientific determination. That is why our core campaign is clearance before occupancy.

A home must be tested and cleared before any family is required to return to it. We were promised we would be able to return home safely. AB 1642 is the best way to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? If so, come on up.

Thank you.

Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of Consumer Watchdog in enthusiastic support.

Hi, Dawn Fanning. I'm with Eaton Fire Residents United. And I'm here on behalf of over 80 organizations. Over 600 individuals. Sorry, that's signed onto this. Specifically CHRLA and Delon. I can't even read because my tears Public Council End Child Poverty of California, Indivisible Natural Resource Defense Council, NRDC, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. So thank you. We urge an Aye.

Hi everyone. Cleo Bluthenthal with the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Do we have any opposition to the Bill? Please come on up.

Good afternoon Chair Members of the Committee. I'm Allison Adey on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. We're here today in respectful opposition to 1642 by Assembly Member Harabedian based on the March 2nd amendments.

Over the last two months we've been having conversations with the author and his team about soil and debris removal, post disaster and existing gaps in the data necessary to respond to the complicated issue of smoke claims. These components of the Bill we are very, very much in support of.

However, the recent amendments have substantially expanded the scope of the Bill to delve into claims handling requirements in a way that curtails ongoing discussions with the Department of Insurance, establishes broad requirements that are not necessary in every situation and will result in billions of dollars of additional claims expenses exacerbating the current insurance crisis of both availability and affordability.

Smoke claims have become a difficult issue over the past few years as the impacts of climate change cause larger and more urban adjacent fires, particularly the LA fires of 2025. Given the complexity of smoke within insurance claims, CDI did convene a smoke claims Task Force in the summer of 2025.

The question posed to this group was how to establish what is covered by an insurance policy for smoke damage following a wildfire and what should be tested for and who should do that testing. This task force is nearing the completion of the work. It is expected to release its report later this week.

The new language usurps that ongoing work of CDI and subsequent policy negotiations by inappropriately granting overlapping and conflicting authority on claims handling to dtsc. For these reasons, we must oppose the Bill as currently in print. Thank you,

Mark Sektnan with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Also in respectful opposition, the insurance industry supports science based uniform statewide standards to reduce inconsistencies, impose wildfire testing and clearance. We think issued standards can reduce claims disputes, improve profit predictability and support safer reoccupancy outcomes.

These standards can also protect wildfire survivors from scare tactics used by opportunists who assert the existence of rare chemicals that are actually not present. The July 2027 deadline may be unrealistic given the lack of existing standards and peer reviewed science on the health impacts of toxic chemicals for all but a small number of compounds and residential settings.

There are significant gaps in scientific research, which takes years of carefully planned study to properly evaluate and document. New standards must balance public health protection with practical feasibility, ensuring access to qualified environmental professionals. Standards should also reflect meaningful differences between homes, schools and workplaces, acknowledging varied exposure pathways and regulatory frameworks.

Collaboration across local, state and federal agencies, including the Department of Insurance, will help avoid conflicts of duplicate requirements. The industry seeks cost effective, validated testing methodologies to avoid unnecessary or unproven procedures that drive up recovery costs.

Phased implementation is necessary to avoid capacity shortages in testing remediation professionals statewide and safe harbors for insurers acting in good faith under state approved protocols would reduce litigation risk and accelerate recovery. In addition, the Bill should limit ensures payments to smoke remediation work actually performed at the home.

As we've seen, unscrupulous attorneys submit smoke remission estimates from suspect firms that have never performed any actual cleaning. The goal must be to provide appropriate protection for homeowners and their families without creating another opportunity for fraud, which will do nothing but drive up the cost of insurance. Thank you.

Thanks. Additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Anna Buck, on behalf of the California Association of Realtors here in respectful opposition to the Bill in print. With that being said, we've had productive conversations with the author's office and his staff and we look forward to continuing those conversations should the Bill proceed today. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We actually put out a position of concern right now, have a number of issues we'd like to talk with the author's office about have started those conversations. So we appreciate those and we'll continue to do those should it move forward. Thank you.

Hi Senor Rancho, I missed my opportunity to give support, but wanted to include Shamika Gaskins, Altadena Wildfire survivor, in support.

Great. Thanks. Coming back to Committee Members,

I don't I'm just curious. First of all, Ms. Buck, if you don't mind, are you aligning your comments with the main witnesses or does do the realtors have different concerns? Because I imagine when you sell a house, you also want it to be safe and clean.

A lot of homes unaffected by wildfire debris.

Oh, okay. That's helpful. Thank you. So it sounds like the concerns are slightly different. Appreciate that the author is working with you on those. I just want to say that I think, and I had one additional question also, which is the way I understand the Bill to work.

DTSC will set forth standards on what the testing and the claim cleanliness is as scientists. But then ultimately the Department of Insurance will continue to change jurisdiction over matters of insurance that you aren't touching what they're talking about around claims and the like. Correct. Okay. So. And I think that I'm frankly excited to support this Bill today.

Member, as everybody here knows, I live in a very similar wildland urban interface to your community. And we have not. We mostly have been put onto the fair plan. So insurance availability isn't a thing for me yet. But hopefully one day it will be.

And, you know, in the meantime, I think what is really critical is when people are paying these insurance premiums month after month, that when something like this happens, the insurance companies do right by the families. And I think the people best able to determine what is safe isn't the Department of Insurance. Frankly, it is the scientists at DTSC.

But I think it's important that as the author clarified that the vision of this is that the Department of Insurance will continue to oversee availability, affordability, all the things you are concerned about, but that we will have real scientists determining when it is safe for a family to move back into their home.

Because that is what everybody on this Committee wants, I can say with certainty is that we all want families to be safe and healthy and living in California in a way that they want.

And the tragedy that you, you and your neighbors went through and then having to fight to get homes that are safe for children and seniors and people who have illnesses should not be what you're going through.

You made a deal with a company that you would pay the month in and month out, and when this happened, they would ensure that you had a safe and livable home. And we, as your representatives, have an obligation to make that real. And I think this is a huge step in making that real.

And I know that if I were moving back into a home after a fire, and I live in a very similar jurisdiction, I would want to know my babies are safe. I hope we can make that happen for you.

Assemblymember.

Yes. I'd like to also thank the author for all of the work you've done in that area. We're talking about Eaton, and as we know it's one of the largest communities of African Americans that been there for decades. And I have a lot of friends that live in that area.

I've always been concerned about the rush to build, and I know that the community also wanted the rush to build. We heard lot about we're not doing enough to rebuild, to rebuild, but I've always been worried about the soil and the contamination and was it being done correctly? And if not, people are going to suffer from it.

We won't know for 10, 20 years, you know, whether. Whether it worked or not. So I am going to support this Bill today because I believe that the scientists should tell us yes or no if it's safe. I really do worry about the safety of my friends and family up there. And so I thank you for this Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member Papan. Then we'll go to the Vice Chair.

Well, first of all, I'm sorry for what you had to go through this not an easy road. So I thank you for being here and speaking in such a composed fashion about what you went through. Thank you for the author, not only for bringing the Bill, but for our discussions about the matter.

Because I think we all want to see that we have an impartial determination that, as the witness said, is based on science.

And I do worry a little bit, as I mentioned, about the DTSC and their ability to be responsive and to come up with regulations, I was relieved that the asbestos part of it is pretty much determined by the Fed, so you don't have to at least wait on those.

That doesn't say much about the heavy metal part of it, which is alarming to say the least. But I wonder if, and I just posed this, if the DTSC is not able to step up to the plate, if.

When we talked about determining rates and climate change and a lot of the insurance industry wanted to do prospective modeling, and then it came down to, well, who was going to determine what the prospective modeling should be.

And I'm wondering if the model of maybe some independent party, an academic from Caltech, whomever you would like to choose, if DTSC doesn't step up to the plate. Because this is a very urgent matter and I know that I don't need to tell you that.

And I appreciate that the bill's been put forward because of maybe some partiality concerns. You seem like lovely people, but I get it and that's okay by me. I fear bureaucratic agencies not giving these people immediate relief.

So if that's the case, and I know that this author is clever Enough to do what he needs to do to make urgency. Also be at the forefront. It's your district. I don't need to tell you that. But these bureaucratic agencies, you're not going to hear a lot of nice things from me about some of them.

But nonetheless, that's. That was kind of my feeling about the Bill, but I'm happy to give you the second. And let's go forth with.

Great. Thanks, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, everyone. So I'll address the technical side first. What other heavy metals of concern are there? You mentioned antimony, zinc, cadmium. What other metals of concern have you found in these fires?

So we have measured for every heavy metal.

Arsenic, mercy, Mercury. How many? Seventeen. Cam 17?

Yes, all of the Cam 17 and more. We detect all of them. The levels vary. The highest levels are for lead and the ones that I've listed, so arsenic, cadmium, chromium. But have.

Have they been upon STLC or ttlc? What are you using? That protocol and mass spectrometry. What are you using?

So what you're asking is typically used for ash and soil, where we can take a very large amount of material and then digest it and measure the bulk concentration. Here we were wiping surfaces. So it is the entire content of the dust that has been collected.

We collect a predetermined surface area, then we express the concentration as a surface area concentration, and we compare. When available, we compare to the limits that have been put forward by the EPA or other agencies.

And you use mass spec. What are you using?

Yes, we are using an ICP MS, an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer.

It is about 1,000 times more sensitive than the emission spectrometry that is typically being used. So we see everything.

Do you measure totals and then soluble?

We measure totals, not soluble.

Okay. Is it not a scientific fact that if you have a certain amount of total, typically a certain percentage of that could be soluble?

That is correct. But everything we measure is contained in very fine dust, which is easy to ingest and be exposed to.

I guess where I'm going is I'm just curious as to the testing protocol because. Because I think that Assembly Member that might be addressed and then the other Assembly Member that brought up the fact that we're dealing with a bureaucratic agency. And you're asking for, in a sense, here.

We want them to respond quickly because these are dire straits. Right? People want to get in their homes, so we want to respond quickly.

How do you so Then is the, is the, and I'll ask you, is the procedure to set guidelines and then use independent laboratories to take samples and do the study and then submit to the DTSC what is the protocol? So the Bill.

Appreciate it, appreciate the questions and they're well taken. So the Bill would be emergency rulemaking on the standards and the remediation standards and the levels of contamination on an emergency basis for Leaden asbestos, which we've talked about, are pretty scientifically set because of the EPA's work and thousands of scientific studies.

Then there will be a regular rulemaking process on the standards for the other heavy metals and contaminants. So a lot of what you're asking about is actually going to be determined by the experts at DTSC and oeha. We're not determining that now.

And this is precisely why we need the experts to come in and tell us what we need to do going forward so that folks in my community or your communities when this happens are safe. And so I can't really tell you exactly what the outcome is going to be on how that protocol is going to work. The rulemaking itself will come up with that protocol.

Do we, do we have any, I know this is probably an obscure question. Do we have any indication, and I'll address this as the insurance folks, of how this might impact.

In other words, you have a regulatory agency that sets guidelines, then you have independent laboratories that go out and take samples and I don't know if they have to submit it to the DTSC. I don't know what that protocol all looks like. But how does that affect your business?

So our understanding of the way this is going to have overlapping agency problems, is that DTSC, who is absolutely the correct entity to be determining what the safe thresholds are for these chemicals, and we're very supportive of that component because it is currently missing in the smoke claims data. Conversations that can inform what should be tested.

But the determination of what gets tested should be on a fire by fire basis because the contaminants carried in a smoke plume are different fire by fire. So by laying out all of the chemicals that need to be tested in every single scenario, it may not be appropriate in certain fires and that is where we have concerns.

So I want to address that. Then to the chemical experts, when you were looking at this Bill, are you saying that there's testing that you want DTSC to do, but what if further testing is needed to determine solubility?

I'm not sure we should be thinking about the solubility question to clarify the protocol we've used is the exact same one that hygienists, professional hygienists use. They go with a wipe. They wipe.

It's a state protocol. State protocol.

So we are following the exact same protocol. The first part of your question, can you repeat it?

Well, I'm just wondering. Just say, for example, someone, you have an independent laboratory go out and test and they come back and they test and they run totals.

But then all of a sudden when you run a total, then a state says that if a certain percentage of that total is high, then a certain percentage could be soluble. Therefore it's.

So can I. Yeah, I just want to bring us back to the Bill. I appreciate the questions. To be clear, the IICRC and professional hygienists, this Bill is not opining on the protocol for how they test. That's not what this Bill does. There's nothing in here addressing that.

This is about the standards for which contaminants you are testing and which levels, after the testing is done, need to be gotten to so that it's actually safe to move back in. So everything you're asking is incredibly relevant to the process itself, but it's not relevant to this Bill because it's not. We are not incorporating those.

We're not saying that the existing protocols need to be changed. Those protocols, which are established by icrc, the industry itself, are there. We are talking about the levels of contamination and what contaminants they should be testing for.

I guess I'm getting the wheeze a little bit. So my concern was that if they set the standards, then then there wouldn't be additional testing that would infringe on the insurance folks.

I think that's fair. I think there's some, again, some confusion about what this Bill does and doesn't do. And with all due respect to my friends, there isn't a single reference to an insurance claim, a smoke damage claim, what an insurance company has to do, et cetera.

We are merely setting scientific standards as to what contaminants need to be tested, which levels are actually safe and not safe. And that, shockingly, hasn't been done. So I'm not sure why it hasn't been done.

And I think because it hasn't been done, it does bleed over into the insurance claims process because there's massive confusion with one party saying this is true and the other party saying, no, it's not.

And then there's no standard or level or rule of engagement to say one is right or the other, and so I think that's why this Bill is so necessary.

Thanks. Thanks for that.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments from the dais? Seeing none. I have a couple in a minute. But I'll invite the author to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes. So this does have a Aye Reco from the chair. I want to thank you for bringing forward this important Bill. Obviously huge impacts on your district, as was so well stated, but really statewide. So appreciate your work on this.

It does sound like there's broad agreement that we need standards to ensure that people can safely return to their communities. So we really do appreciate your push that these standards have to be health protective and based on science. But couple other notes. Understand that the.

As was noted, the California Department of Insurance is planning to release a report and that also Assemblymember Gipson is working on a Bill on this topic. Again, this is a cutting edge issue with major human health implications. So very glad to see that there are multiple voices at the table. Looking forward to seeing how the policy evolves.

I know this author will continue to put in the work necessary. Again, this has an aye reco. We have a motion from Assemblymember Bauer Kahan. Second from Assemblymember Papan in. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

5 to 2 vote. That matter passes. Thank you. And that will be going to the Committee on Appropriations. File item 3, AB 1691. Assembly Member Dixon, welcome. And this bill deals with copper based antifouling paint.

Is this on? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. First, I would like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for their continued work with myself and my staff on AB 1691.

Current law gives the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, DPR, the authority to regulate the leach rate of copper based antifouling paint for use on recreational vessels and to make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures to protect aquatic environments from the effects of exposure to the paint.

The State Water Resources Control Board, SWRCB, also has the authority to develop and enforce water quality objectives for copper in water bodies. Copper based antifouling paint is a legal California registered commercial pesticide which has been distributed in sold throughout the state for decades.

This widely used and necessary paint is proven to be the most effective barrier against marine growth attaching to the undersides of boats, which if left unchecked can significantly affect vessel fuel consumption and efficiency, leading to increased operational costs and emissions as well as the proliferation of invasive species.

However, over the last several years, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Pesticide Regulation have both issued several conflicting regulations in an attempt to reduce the amount of dissolved copper that is discharged within our harbors.

This has resulted in a situation where the boats within California are utilizing paints regulated by DPR, but the copper saturation of some waterways are not at or below the level set by SWRCB, causing significant confusion and complications for our local governments as well as the marine community.

Cities are now being tasked by local water boards to invest millions of dollars into lowering the dissolved copper levels within harbors. While those same cities have no ability to control over paint formulation and little ability, this is important, to control traffic by vessels in their waterways from other locations.

AB 1691 will address these conflicting regulations and provide clarity on copper based antifouling boat paints and elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors through three main components.

First, by January 1, 2029 DPR, the Pesticide Board shall complete a re-evaluation of copper based antifouling boat paint products to determine whether to retain, modify, or suspend the current standards on the chemical composition or use of copper based antifouling paint.

And second, by June 1, 2028 the CPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Control Boards, and DPR will be required to collaborate on active studies relative to the effectiveness of low leach rate paint and elevated copper concentrations in salt water harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of copper based antifouling paint.

Third, by January 1, 2029, the CPA, the State Water Resources Control Board, and DPR will collaborate to determine and make available on its website the best methods to address elevated copper concentrations in saltwater harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of of the use of this paint in the state.

My office has met with both the opposition and the Department of Pesticide regulation to discuss AB 1691. While we do understand the opposition's concerns, our legislation makes no recommendation that usage of copper based boat paint products be prohibited by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, nor does it give the Department additional regulatory authority.

Additionally, this legislation requires no new studies. It merely requires a completion of all existing studies regarding these products by 2028. Instead, AB 1691 offers a reasonable compromise to address the conflicting regulations issued by these state departments which have ended up costing cities millions of dollars.

Specifically the requirement that the Department of Pesticide Regulation and the State Water Resources Control Board work together to develop consistent regulation as paramount as the current level of collaboration between the two departments following our meeting is unclear.

While the health of our waterways and wildlife is of utmost importance, it is also our responsibility to ensure regulations, testing, enforcement, and costs are uniform, justifiable, and comprehensible in order to ensure the safety of our harbors.

I will continue to work with the opposition and our state agencies to ensure this legislation takes into account all concerns, but AB 1691 currently represents the most reasonable compromise between the stakeholders and the involved regulatory authorities.

I have with me Mr. Chris Miller, a Public Works Manager with the City of Newport Beach, our sponsor, who will be speaking in support of AB 1691 and can answer any technical questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee.

Thank you, Member Dixon and Chair Connolly. My name is Chris Miller with the City of Newport Beach, and I'll offer just a few broad comments in accent what Member Dixon has just said. The City of Newport Beach supports AB 1691 and the efforts of Assembly Member Dixon and her staff and especially the detailed analysis and hard work from the committee staff to get us here to this point today.

As Member Dixon can attest, the City has a proven water quality track record and we've partnered with the Water Board on a myriad of issues over the past 25 years. For starters, the City of Newport Beach has a deep boating heritage and we are proud of Newport Harbor and consider to be our city centerpiece.

The City also strongly supports the boating community and we also support copper based antifouling paint for use on recreational vessels. Newport Harbor, we have 4,500 vessels in our harbor. Copper antifouling paint has many benefits. It increases the vessel efficiency, which is less surface drag, therefore improves fuel consumption, therefore improves air emissions, and it also repels invasive species

Copper antifouling paint has universal appeal, has performed well, and has been extremely effective for decades. Now copper boat paint is meant to leach off of boats. That's its purpose. And as boats travel, it leafs off. It leaches off in micrograms, very small quantities, and it takes with it the growth that would typically grow on the underside of boats.

To repeat, the City supports copper based antifouling paint and we are not advocating for a substitute antifouling chemical or otherwise. However, the heart of the issue is this. DPR approves copper based antifouling paint to be sold in California. And shipyards are applying this legal formulated paint on nearly every boat in California's harbors, bays, and marinas.

Conversely, the State's Water Board, a sister agency to DPR, is enforcing regulatory copper water quality compliance through the TMDL, not only in Newport Beach, but in San Diego and Marina Del Rey as well. This regulatory copper based TMDL is really the underlying reason which brought us here today.

In other words, DPR allows paint to have this much copper and the Water Board regulates how much copper can be in the water. To prove that point, the Water Board states that there is a causal relationship between copper based antifouling paint and elevated levels of copper in the water column.

This dichotomy represents an inherent regulatory conflict with TMDLs. Resolution of any water quality concerns related to copper should be handled at the state level. The city, county, or even individual boaters cannot lawfully control the use of legal California approved paints.

If local harbors can't control the paints, then how can we control water quality exceedances as a direct result of the paints? Essentially, this bill asks both agencies, the Water Board, and DPR to work together and collectively decide via studies if the existing copper formulation within the paint is adequate or requires adjustment.

In closing, the state decides the level of copper in the paint. Once that's decided, the state agencies should live with those results. The City of Newport Beach supports AB 1691, and we respectfully request your support this afternoon.

Thank you. Additional support testimony? Come on up.

Hi. Good afternoon. April Robinson with the Voice for Choice Advocacy in support of this bill.

Great. Is there any opposition to the bill?

Chair and Members. Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California, a statewide advocacy organization. Been around for about 58 years, and our communities have a lot of experience in dealing with the regional board's copper based antifouling surfaces as described.

We want to take a second to express our appreciation for the leadership that the Assembly Member has given to this issue and her objectives with the legislation. You know, our concern, and we look forward to working with the author and the proponents as the measure moves forward, are unintended consequences.

And the process that is unintended gives... It establishes a requirement to collaborate to determine best methods. And the collaboration in itself is a study because if you're going to develop best methods, it is a study. There's no public process for that, for engagement of the boating community in doing so.

And then when we talk about the best methods that will be established, it's specific to best methods to address the increased concentration of copper in these impaired water bodies. But there is what is a best method? If we look at the agencies that will be collaborating, they could easily determine that the best method is to ban copper paint.

Or the best method, you know, there could be a lot of best methods. And there's no, there is no guardrails on what a best method would be to take advantage of the experience that our community has and the processes that are ongoing.

The example would be in the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. I think since this bill, the previous version of this bill last year and this bill, decided like it's been stated, that they can't meet the Basin Plan Amendment with the measures that they've adopted.

So there is a collaborative process that's just been announced in November to involve all the stakeholders. That'll be the boaters who are trying to put on non-buy side antifouling paint. Our efforts with the stakeholder community and the environmental community and the regional boards to take advantage of what have we learned over those 15 years.

What is a better approach? Better to look at that kind of study and determine in a public process whether there's anything that could be learned from it. When we look at the first part of the bill that talks about directing DPR to do a re-evaluation of paint, there doesn't need to be a law to say to do it.

They have the necessary tools and direction to reevaluate copper paint. When we look at those kinds of measures in the bill, we really wonder what would be accomplished by just a go develop a best method within a time certain. So that we know is all unintended.

But we see it in the text of the bill. And so for that, we want to engage with the committee, with the author, and the proponents to see how we can obtain the objectives of the legislation and her intended balance of boating and antifouling paint. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional opposition to the bill?

Chairman, Members. Beau Biller on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association. We'll liken our comments with Jerry. I'd like to just briefly add though, thank you very much to the author and her staff and your staff for engaging with us on this. I think there's a place to go here, and I appreciate your efforts. And but I have to get on record for that. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional comment? Okay, let's bring it back to Committee Members. Questions, comments? There has not been a motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We heard a couple of issues. Oh, okay. Go ahead. And then I'll...

I have a quick comment. Thank you, Assembly Member. Just FYI, for general information, copper is not a carcinogen. High concentrations of carcinogen of copper can help like a tumor growth, but it's not a carcinogen. And actually it's necessary for bodily function. How it affects marine life, I'm ignorant. But as far as it comes to us, it's a non-carcinogen. I wanted to make sure that really clear.

No, I appreciate that. We heard a couple of points. Just if you have a response, how to determine best method and then kind of looking forward a public process for engagement that would include the boating community.

So what's, the question is how would that happen?

Yeah. Or just any response to that.

Well, this is actually the opposition and Mr. Miller and I, we're in agreement. It's just really the process to keep the focus of this regulatory. These agencies coming together. Let's not broaden it and kill the baby with the bathwater, if you will.

So public process, I'll let Mr. Miller speak on this as well. We all support a public process, but we really want the guardrails to define where we want to go with it. Chris, if you want to mention anything else.

Sure. As I would understand the opposition's points, it's the intention of the bill, as I stated previously, is not to substitute copper in our antifouling paints. Copper works. We do support it. It's been around for decades and it is the most effective paint solution.

There are other alternatives that have been tested, but they have their own suite of problems and unintended consequences. And they have yet to be adopted or adopted by other agencies. Particularly in the state of Washington, who's done extensive study. So I think it's what levels of copper is appropriate in the paint. It's not substituting copper. And certainly public process, we're always for public process and comment.

Great. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your support, the committee support. Thank you.

Yeah. And thank you. Wanted to thank you for bringing this bill forward. It does have an aye reco from the Chair. We have a motion from Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. Do I have a second? From Assembly Member Lee. Let's go ahead and call the roll. This is a motion on do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.

This is file item number 3, AB 1691, offered by Assembly Member Dixon. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations as amended. Retract that. Do pass on the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That matter passes.

Thank you very much.

Then finally, we have File item number four. This is AB 1744. Assemblymember Addis. Saw her in the room dealing with environmental advertising.

Congratulations. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Chair. And thank you to your staff and advocates. We are here Today to present AB 1744, the clear labels Clear Seas Act, a bill that has no opposition. I will say that California's rocky reefs and marine ecosystems are critical to maintaining our state's biodiversity, our fisheries and our coastal tourism.

And of note is that coastal tourism brings in 51 billion doll a year annually or the coastal economy of that 67%. Is coastal tourism so very important to central coast, North Coast and all of California? Unfortunately, man made factors are directly contributing to their decline. The decline of coastal reefs in recent years.

And it's had a drastic effect on our natural environment and climate. One of the major problems is that certain chemicals that are commonly found in sunscreen are of a particular concern. Because when you get in the water, they wash off your body and into the ocean.

These chemicals have harmed coral and other marine life by disrupting photosynthesis, damaging DNA and causing coral bleaching. Our bill is a solution that will support coral reef health and healing. Add clarity by defining what it means to be reef safe and provide consumer protections. The bill itself is very simple.

It would simply say that if you're going to call something reef safe or reef friendly, it doesn't contain those chemicals, it doesn't ban any chemicals. It's a very simple transparency bill that will provide consumer clarity.

I liken this to when you go to the grocery store because you're on your way to the beach and you grab a bottle of sunscreen off the shelf and it's your intention to have sunscreen that's reef friendly, reef safe. You just want to know that you can trust that label when you pull that bottle off the shelf.

And that's what this bill would do. The bill is actually sponsored by, initiated by and sponsored by the McClatchy High School Eco Club. They're here in Sacramento. And this is Michaela Spencer, high school junior who came up with the bill idea along with her colleagues at her high school. And she will testify today.

Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. McKayla Spencer. On behalf of the Eco Club at C.K. mcClatchy Senior High School in Sacramento. Our club is proud to sponsor AB 1744 as high school students who care deeply about the environment, we learn how everyday consumer products can have a significant impact on our ecosystems.

While researching ocean conservation last summer, I was surprised to learn just how damaging chemicals commonly used in sunscreen are on marine life and fragile marine ecosystem. Scientific studies, including research from the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other peer reviewed sources, show that these chemicals can disrupt photosynthesis and damage DNA, which contributes to coral bleaching.

When swimmers and beachgoers enter the water, these chemicals can wash off and accumulate in coastal habitats. Even small amounts can affect coral larvae, algae, fish populations and marine vegetation such as kelp and seagrass, all plants that provide essential habitat for many species.

California's rocky reef ecosystems, from the Channel Islands to our northern kelp forests, supports hundreds of marine species, protect our coastline, and generate billions in tourism and fisheries revenue. They are also one of the most sensitive habitats on the West Coast.

Despite the science and the harms these chemicals have on marine life, some sunscreen products that contain chemical UV filters are still marketed as Reef Safe, Reef Friendly or Ocean Safe. Learning this was troubling. These claims can mislead consumers who, like us, are trying to make environmentally responsible choices. They create an unfair marketing advantage and perpetuate greenwashing.

That is why our club chose to sponsor AV1744. This bill takes a simple truth in advertising approach. It ensures sunscreen products sold in California cannot be labeled or advertised as reef safe, reef friendly, or a similar claim if they contain any chemical UV filters.

For us, this bill is about honesty and protecting our oceans and creating real change. Consumers deserve accurate information and our marine ecosystems deserve stronger protection. On behalf of the eco Club at C.K. mcClatchy Senior High School, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Great job. Do we have any other testimony in favor? Come on up to the mic.

Hi, my name is Isabel Neff. I'm the President of CK McClatchy's Eco Club and speaking on behalf of the club, we strongly support this bill.

Good afternoon. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy in support of this bill.

Thanks. Seeing no others. Do we have any opposition? Sounds like we don't and not seeing any here. Why don't we bring it back to Committee Members? Assembly Member Papan.

Well, congratulations to the club. Thank you for being here and enlightening us. I think we can all stipulate that we don't want our reefs to be damaged. But what I love about this bill is that it's reasonably tailored to actually get the job done. So it's one thing to say, we have a problem.

It's another thing to have a real practical solution to the problem. So congratulations and I'm happy to move the Bill if it hasn't been moved yet.

You got it.

Thank you for being here.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you for bringing this Bill. And I also, to the point of my colleague from San Mateo, want to congratulate you on working on this Bill. In a way that I represent a non coastal community, but a very big swimming community.

We are in our pools a lot and skin cancer is something that we focus with on our kids making sure they have their sunscreen on. And so this isn't banning it in my community doesn't make a ton of sense because we just, we're in chlorine all day.

And so I think that the solution here is a really good one because I think it will help people understand how to use sunscreen when they're at the coast and allow Californians who aren't using our beaches as much because of location to make other choices.

And so I do also really appreciate the tailoring of this bill and look forward to seeing it move through the process.

Other Members, Vice Chair, Good job.

I have a. Have a comment. So when I was looking at this bill prior to coming in here today, my little analytical mind took over and it said, and I just. This is all hypothetical.

If you take 3 ounces of this sunscreen and you put it on and you go in the water and suppose there's 10, there are 10,000 people on the beach. That's 30,000 ounces, that's 937 quarts or gallons. At 8.3 pounds per gallon, which equivocates to almost one ton per day. That's significant.

So it's very easy to support this and I commend your club. Thank you.

We like that analysis. That's a good one. I know, right? Yeah. I'm going to invite the chair to close.

Well, thank you so much and just thank you for the comments. Very astute. We have a very tailored Bill and again in no opposition and we would be honored and respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Yeah. And really wanted to thank you for bringing the Bill forward and appreciate my colleagues comments in that regard. It's reasonable to ensure that when environmental claims are made, they're accurate. This really is a transparency and labeling Bill. I want to thank the sponsor. Good job. The mighty Eco Club.

And hopefully this was a good experience for you not your last time at the Capitol. I know you're nearby so we'd love to have you back. And this does have an eye reco from the chair. We did have a motion. And second, this will be do pass to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

This is File item number four, AB 1744, authored by Assemblymember Addis. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. [Roll Call]

That matter carries unanimously. Thank you. All right. Yeah. Why don't we go ahead and do add ons before we adjourn? Yeah, so just do those too.

All right. File item number five was on consent. AB 1617, it was do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

7-0.

File item number one was AB 1604, do pass as amended to the Committee on Judiciary. Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That is 7-0.

File item number two, AB 1642, was do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Oh, my apologies. That was 5-2 not... It was 5-2. Not voting.

Well, no, we have to... Okay, so we don't have any others. Okay. Correction on AB 1642, the vote was 5 to 2. That matter also passes. 5-0-2. And we are adjourned.