Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
On the proposed consent calendar is item number five a b one six one seven, authored by assembly member Alanis, due passed to, the committee on appropriation. Connolly?
Speaker 2
Ellis, aye. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo?
No. Lee? McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, aye.
Happen? Aye. Happen, aye.
Speaker 1
So that matter is approved, and we will go ahead and move to file item number one. AB 16 o four, Assembly Member Stephanie, if you could come forward on your bill dealing with bisphenols in paper receipts. Welcome.
Speaker 4
like to hear. Shall I proceed? Great. Thank you, chair. Today, I'm presenting a b 16 o four.
I really wanna say I appreciate the work of the committee and will 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 assembly member Phil Ting, who championed the previous, iterations of this bill. A b 16 o four would prohibit the use of bisphenol a in paper receipts by 01/01/2027, and all bisphenol chemical chemicals, BPS, in paper receipts by 01/01/2028. 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. I 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 with Breast Cancer Prevention Partners and Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste.
Speaker 7
Thank you very much. And good afternoon, chair and members. Nancy Buermeyer, 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 assembly member Stephanie for your leadership on sixteen o four 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, and that share the same basic structure and many of the same health concerns. That is exactly what happened with 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. Seventy percent are women, seventy six percent 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 twenty percent 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 I vote.
Speaker 8
Thank you, mister chair and members. My name is Tony Hackett with Californians Against Waste, and we are really proud to cosponsor AB 16 o four 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 the 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 a b 16 o four 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. AB 16 o four 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 I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any additional members of the public, in support of the bill come on up at this point?
Speaker 2
Good afternoon. Mandy Strela 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, three fifty Bay Area, and three fifty Contra Costa County. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Doctor Pam O'Dell, Climate Action California in support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Good afternoon. Lydia Yann on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility LA, Sunrise Bay Area, earthday earthday.org, and Elast Plastic Straw. Thank you.
Speaker 13
Sophie Jansen on behalf of the American Sustainable Business Network representing over 200,000 businesses in all 50 states supports a b 16 o four to better protect the health of our employees and our customers.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition to a b 16 o four? Seeing no opposition. Okay. We'll bring it back.
Any questions, comments from committee members? Assembly member.
Speaker 14
Well, I wanna thank the assembly member from San Francisco for bringing this. It is a long held San Francisco tradition, and
Speaker 14
more success than your predecessor. And I think not dressing your staff up as a receipt is a great first step. And 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 the receipts 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 of possibility. So, hopefully, this will be bipartisan and easy for you. But with that, I'm happy to support it today.
Speaker 1
Other comments, questions? Seeing none. Okay. We have a motion and second. And this is a aye reco from the chair.
Would you like to close?
Speaker 2
This is file item number one a B16O4 authored by assembly member Stefani. The motion is due pass as amended to the committee on judiciary. Connolly?
Speaker 2
Connolly, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer Cahan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye.
Lee McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, aye. Happen? Aye.
Happen, aye.
Speaker 1
Great. That matter passes. We're gonna leave it open for absent members. Congrats. Okay.
We're gonna move to file item two. Assembly member Harbidean, please come forward with a b sixteen forty two relating to wildfires.
Speaker 6
Oh, well, thank you. I that's exactly how I wanna start. Thank you very much. Thank you, mister chair. I'll wait for the second.
That's fine. We'll we'll testify first. We'll testify first.
Speaker 6
Good. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Thank you, first of all, to the staff for the very thorough, staff report. It, one, brought me back to a 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 it was great. And, I've talked to
Speaker 6
you about this bill. This bill, you it's bills are like children. You never wanna 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 they're 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. And, 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 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 a v sixteen forty two does is really just two elegant simple things. It's what contaminants do we test for after a w WUI wildfire wildland urban inter interface wildfire, and two, 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
Speaker 6
asking DTSC, Department of Toxic Substances Control, along with o e o e h h a to develop these standards. And luckily, because of thousands of scientific studies that have been conducted, we know the safe levels of 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 doctor Francois Tissot, who's going to, provide some testimony and Jane Lan Patel who is a member of the Eaton Fire Residence United who has been instrumental in this bill.
So I will I will kick it to them, for further testimony.
Speaker 17
Thank you. My name is Francois Tissot. I'm a professor of geochemistry at Caltech where my research group uses specialized instrument to measure the concentration of elements in samples. I'm also an Ethan 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 com 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 effects, especially on children at high levels. Exposure is lethal. At lower levels, it results in impaired cognitive development, skeletal issues, cardiovascular issues as well. 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 damaged 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 Ethan 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 sixteen forty two provides such a framework, and I respectfully urge an I vote.
Speaker 18
My name is Jane Lawton Potel. I am a founder and executive director of Eaton Fire Residence 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 it suffered severe smoke damage. Billy had remediation come, 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 sixteen forty two is the best way to do that. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Hi. John Fanning. I'm with Eat and Fire Residents United, and I'm here on behalf of over 80 organizations, over 600 individuals, sorry, that signed on to this, specifically, CHERLA, Endolan. I can't even read because of my tears. Public counsel, End Child Poverty of California, Indivisible, Natural Resource Defense Council, NRDC, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
So thank you. We urge an aye.
Speaker 13
Hi, everyone. Cleo Bluethenthal with the California Community Foundation in strong support.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee. I'm Allison Eighty on behalf of the Personal Insurance Federation of California. We're here today in respectful opposition to sixteen forty two by assembly member, Harrod Beedian, based on the March 2 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, 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 caused larger and more urban adjacent fires, particularly the LA fires of twenty twenty five. Given the complexity of smoke within insurance claims, CDI did convene a smoke claims task force in the 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.
Speaker 16
Mark Segman with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, also in a 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 Janu 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 in 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 rich 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 and 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 insurers' payments to smoke remediation work actually performed at the home. As we've seen unscrupulous attorneys submit smoke remediation 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.
Speaker 11
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.
Speaker 20
Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of 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.
Speaker 2
Hi, Yesenia Robancho. I missed my opportunity to give support, but wanted to include Shamika Gaskins, Altadena wildfire survivor, in support.
Speaker 14
don't I'm just curious, first of all, miss Buck, if you don't mind, are you aligning your comments with the main witnesses, or just do the realtors have different concerns? Because I imagine when you sell a house, you also want it to be safe and clean.
Speaker 14
Oh, okay. That's helpful. Thank you. So it sounds like the concerns are slightly different. I appreciate that the author is working with you on those.
I just wanna say that I think and I have 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 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.
Speaker 14
So and I think that I'm frankly excited to support this bill today as a family 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 on 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, 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 the way they want. And the tragedy that 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 the 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 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 wanna know my babies are safe. I hope we can make that happen for you.
Speaker 21
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 we as we know, it's one of the largest communities African Americans that been there for for for decades and, 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. You know, we heard a lot about we're not doing enough to 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 gonna suffer from it. We won't know for ten, twenty 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.
Speaker 15
Well, first of all, I'm sorry for what you had to go through. This is not an easy road. So I thank you for being here and speaking in such a composed fashion about what you went through. My and I 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 the heavy metal part of it, which is alarming to say the least. But, I I wonder if if and I I just pose this. If the DTSC is not able to step up to the plate, if you know, when we talked about determining rates and climate change and a lot of the just the insurance industry wanted to do prospective modeling. Right?
And then it came down to, well, who was gonna determine what the prospective modeling should be? And I'm wondering if the model of maybe some independent party, an academic from Caltech, you know, whomever you you would like to choose if d t s e because it 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 the bill has been put forward because of maybe some partiality concerns. You seem like lovely people, but I get it. But and that's okay by me.
I just I I fear bureaucratic agencies not giving these people immediate relief. So if that's the case, and I I know that this author is clever enough to 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 gonna 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 it.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for being here, everyone. So I'll address the technical side first. What other heavy metals of concern other you mentioned antimony, zinc, cadmium. What other metals of concern have you found in these fires?
Speaker 17
All of the CAM 17 and and more. Okay. 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 but
Speaker 3
Have they been have they been upon STLC or TTLC? What are you using that protocol in mass spectrometry? What are you using?
Speaker 17
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.
Speaker 17
We are using an ICP MS, an effectively coupled plasma spectrometer. It is about a thousand times more sensitive than the emission spectrometry that is typically being used. So we we see everything.
Speaker 3
Is it not a scientific fact that if if you have a certain amount of total, typically, a certain percentage of that could be soluble?
Speaker 17
That is correct. But everything we measure is contained in very fine dust, which is easy to ingest, and be exposed to.
Speaker 3
I guess where I'm going is, I'm 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 in a in a sense here, we we want them to respond quickly because this is these are dire straits. Right? People wanna get in their homes. So we wanna respond quickly.
How do you so then is the is the and I'll 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 ATSC? What what is the protocol?
Speaker 6
So the bill, appreciate it. Appreciate the questions, and 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 lead and asbestos, which we've talked about, are pretty scientifically set because of the EPA's work and thousands of scientific studies, then there'll be a regular rule making 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 OEHHA. 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's going to be on how that protocol is gonna work. The rule making itself will come up with that protocol.
Speaker 3
Do we do we have any I know this is probably a obscure question. Do we have any indication, and I'll address this to 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 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?
Speaker 13
So our understanding of the way this is gonna have overlapping agency problems is that DTSC, 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 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 it that is where we have concerns.
Speaker 3
So I I wanna 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?
Speaker 17
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 hygienist professional hygienist use. They go with a wipe. They wipe
Speaker 17
Yeah. So we are we are following the exact same protocol. This the first part of your question, can you repeat it?
Speaker 3
Well, I'm I'm just wondering. Let's just say, for example, someone you have a independent laboratory go out Yeah. And test. And they come back and they test, and they run totals. Mhmm.
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 can I yeah.
Speaker 6
I just I just wanna bring us back to the bill. I I appreciate the questions. To to be clear, the IICRC and professional hygienists, they 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 are not saying that the existing protocols need to be changed. Those protocols which are established by IICRC, the the industry itself, are there. We are talking about the levels of contamination and what contaminants they should be testing for.
Speaker 3
I guess I'm getting the wheeze a little bit. So my my concern was that, if they set the standards, then then there wouldn't be additional testing that would infringe on the insurance folks.
Speaker 6
I think that's fair. I I don't think I 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, etcetera. 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 is no there's no standard or level or rule of engagement to say one is right or the other. And so I I think that's why this bill is so necessary.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the diets? Seeing none on I have a couple in a minute, but I'll invite the author to close.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Yes. So this does have a eye echo from the chair. I wanna 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. I understand that the as was noted, the California Department of Insurance is planning to release a report, and that also Assembly Member Gibson 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 eye reco. We have a motion from assembly member Bauer Cahan, second from assembly member Pappin.
Let's go ahead and call the roll.
Speaker 2
This is file item number two a b sixteen forty two authored by assembly member Harabedian. The motion is due passed to the committee on appropriations. Connolly?
Speaker 2
Ellis not voting. Bauer Cahan? Aye. Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo?
Not voting. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. McKinnar?
Aye. McKinnar, aye. Pappin? Aye. Pappin, aye.
Speaker 1
Five to two vote. That matter passes. Thank you. And that will be going to the committee on appropriations. File item three, a b sixteen ninety one, assembly member Dixon, welcome.
And this bill deals with copper based antifouling paint.
Speaker 5
Oh, is this on? Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Thank you, mister 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 a b sixteen ninety one.
Current law gives the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, DPR, the authority to regulate the leach rate of copper based anti fouling 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 anti fouling paint is a legal California registered commercial pesticide, which has been distributed and 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 cost 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 issued 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 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 overpaint formulation and little ability, and this is important, to control traffic by vessels in their waterways from other locations. AB sixteen ninety one 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 01/01/2029, DPR, the pesticide board, shall complete a reevaluation of copper based anti falling boat paint products to determine whether to retain, modify, or suspend the current standards on the clinical composition or use of copper based anti fouling paints. And second, by 06/01/2028, 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 saltwater, harbors, bays, and marinas that are primarily a result of the use of copper based antifouling paint.
Third, by 01/01/2029, 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 the use of this paint in the state. My office has met with both the opposition and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to discuss a b sixteen ninety one. While we do understand the opposition's concerns, our legislation makes no recommendation that usage of copper based bulk 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, a b sixteen ninety one 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 a b sixteen ninety one currently represents the most reasonable compromise between the stakeholders and the involved regulatory authorities. I have with me mister Chris Miller, a public works manager with the city of Newport Beach, our sponsor, who will be speaking in support of a b 60 sixteen ninety one and can ask answer any technical questions.
Thank you, mister chair and committee.
Speaker 22
Welcome. 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 a b sixteen ninety one in 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 twenty five years.
For starters, the city of Newport Beach has a deep boating heritage, and we are proud of Newport Harbor and considered 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, 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 in micro micrograms, very small quantities, and it takes with it the the, 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 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 waterboard, regulates how much copper can be in the water.
To prove that point, the waterboard 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 asked both agencies, the water board and the and the DPR, to work together and collectively decide via studies if the existing copier 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 agency agencies should live with those results. The city of Newport Beach supports a b sixteen ninety one, and we respectfully request your support this afternoon.
Speaker 23
Chair and members, Jerry Desmond with Recreational Boaters of California, a statewide advocacy organization. I've been around for about fifty eight years, and our communities have a lot of experience in dealing with the regional boards, copper based anti fouling surfaces as described. We wanna 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 not is a study because if you're gonna 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'll 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 and there's no there's 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, has been stated that the they can't meet the basin plan amendment with the measures that they've adopted. So there is a collaborative process that just been announced in November to involve all the stakeholders. That'll be the boaters who are trying to put on nonbiased anti fouling 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 fifteen 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 real evaluation of paint, there doesn't need to be a 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 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 her the objectives of the legislation and her intended balance of voting and, and, anti filing pay.
Thank you.
Speaker 24
Mister chairman, members of Bill Miller, on behalf of the Marine Recreation Association, we're liking 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,
Speaker 1
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. No. Okay.
We have a motion.
Speaker 1
And a second. We heard a couple of issues. Oh, okay. Go ahead, and then I'll
Speaker 3
Just I have a quick comment. Yeah. Thank you, assembly member. Just FYI for general information, copper is not a carcinogen. High concentrations of carcinogen can of copper can 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 that that really clear.
Speaker 1
We heard a couple of points. Just if you have a response, how to determine best method and then kind of looking forward to public process for engagement that would include the voting community.
Speaker 5
It's just really the process Yes. To to keep the focus of this, regulatory these agencies coming together. Let's not broaden it and and kill the baby with the bathwater, if you will. So, a public process I'll let mister Miller speak on this as well. We all support a public process, but we really want the guardrails to define where we wanna go with it.
Chris, if you wanna mention anything else.
Speaker 22
Sure. As I would understand the opposition's points, it's the the intention of the bill, as as I stated previously, is not substitute copper in our antifouling paints. Copper works. We do support it. It's, 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 or, adopted by by other agency, particularly in the state of Washington who's done extensive study. So I think I think it's where what what levels of copper is appropriate in the paint. It's not substituting copper. And and certainly, a public process, we're always for, public processing comment.
Speaker 1
Yeah. And thank you. Wanted to thank you for, bringing this bill forward. It does have an aye racco from the chair. We have a motion from Assembly Member Bauer Cahan.
Do I have a second? From Assembly Member Lee. Let's go ahead and call the roll. This is a motion on due pass to the committee on appropriations.
Speaker 2
This is file item number three, a b sixteen ninety one, authored by assembly member Dixon. The motion is due pass to the committee on appropriations as amended. No. Retract Okay. That.
Do pass on the committee on appropriations. Connolly? Aye. Connolly, aye. Ellis?
Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauer Cahan?
Speaker 2
Bauer Cahan, aye. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, aye. Lee?
Aye. Lee, I. McKinnar? McKinnar, I. And Pappin?
Pappin, I.
Speaker 1
And finally, we have file item number four. This is a b seventeen forty four, assembly member Addis. Saw her in the room. Dealing with environmental advertising.
Speaker 19
Well, thank you, chair, and thank you to your staff and advocates. We are here today to present e b seventeen forty four, 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 $51,000,000,000 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, decline of coastal reefs in recent years, and it's had a drastic effect on our natural environment and climate. And 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. And these chemicals have harmed coral and other marine life by disrupting photosynthesis, damaging d o DNA, and causing coral bleaching. So 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.
And the bill itself is very simple. It would, simply say that if if you're gonna call something reef safe or reef friend 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 and reef safe.
You just wanna 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 Mikayla Spencer, high school junior high school junior, who came up with the bill idea along with her colleagues at her high school, and she will testify today.
Speaker 25
Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. Mikaela Spencer, on behalf of the Eco Club at CK McClatchy Senior High School in Sacramento, our club is proud to sponsor AB seventeen forty four. 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 ecosystems.
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 forest 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 AV seventeen forty four.
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 CK McClatchy Senior High School, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Great job. Do we have any other testimony in favor? Come on up to the mic.
Speaker 9
Hi. My name is Isabelle 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
Speaker 1
Thanks. Seeing no others, do we have any opposition? Sounds like we don't. I am not seeing any here. Why don't we bring it back to committee members?
Assembly member Papp.
Speaker 15
Well, congratulations to the club. Thank you for being here and enlightening us. I 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.
Speaker 14
Yeah. Thank you for, bringing this bill. And I also, to the point of my colleague from San Mateo, wanna congratulate you on working on this bill in a way that I represent a noncoastal 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 weren't 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.
Speaker 3
Good job. I have a I 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 three ounce 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 you your club. Thank you.
Speaker 1
We like that analysis. That's a good one. I know. Right? Yeah.
I'm gonna invite the chair to close.
Speaker 19
Well, thank you so much, and just thank you for the comments. Very astute. We have a very tailored bill and, again, and no opposition, and we would be honored and respectfully ask for your vote.
Speaker 1
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 wanna 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. You I know you're nearby, so we'd love to have you back. And this does have a eye reco from the chair.
We did have a motion and second. This will be due passed to the committee on privacy and consumer protection. Madam clerk, please call the roll.
Speaker 2
This is file item number four, a b seventeen forty four, authored by assembly member Addis. The motion is due passed to the committee on privacy and consumer protection. Connolly?
Speaker 2
Connolly, aye. Ellis? Aye. Ellis, aye. Bauerkehan?
Aye. Bauer Cahan, I. Castillo? Aye. Castillo, I.
Lee? Aye. Lee, McKinnar? Aye. McKinnar, I.
And Pappan? Aye. Pappan, Seven zero.
Speaker 2
Alright. File item number five was on consent, a b 1617. It was due passed to the committee on appropriations. Lee? Aye.
Lee, I, and Castillo?
Speaker 2
Castillo, 70. File item number one was AB16O4. Do pass as amended to the committee on judiciary. Chair voting aye. Lee?
Aye. Lee, aye.
Speaker 2
File item number 2, AB1642 was due passed to the committee on appropriations. Oh, my apologies. That was 5 to not.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.