Assembly committee advances bill to set science‑based clearance standards after wildfires
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
AB 1642 would direct DTSC and OEHHA to set emergency and long‑term standards for what contaminants to test for and what clearance levels allow safe reoccupation of homes, workplaces and schools after urban/WUI fires; scientists and survivors urged action while insurers warned of costs and overlapping authority.
Assemblymember Harveydian told the Committee that AB 1642 is intended to provide science‑based answers to what contaminants must be tested after wildland‑urban‑interface fires and what levels constitute safe reoccupation of homes, workplaces and schools.
Dr. Francois Tissot, a Caltech geochemistry professor and Eaton Fire survivor, said his team's surface‑wipe sampling found high levels of heavy metals in dust inside standing homes and downwind from the burn area, with contamination highest near entry points and some measurements "up to 30 times the EPA limit." He said the data expose a gap in post‑fire clearance protocols and urged DTSC and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to develop standards under emergency rulemaking for lead and asbestos and a regular rulemaking process for additional contaminants.
Jane Lawton Potell of Eaton Fire Residents United described survivors' experiences of repeated remediation and persistent elevated lead, and said insurance limits have left families trying to clean contaminated homes themselves. Consumer and survivor testimony was backed by organizations including Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Representatives of the insurance industry — including Allison Ade of the Personal Insurance Federation of California and Mark Segnon of APCIA — expressed respectful opposition to aspects of the March 2 amendments, arguing the bill as amended expands into claims handling, could duplicate ongoing work by the California Department of Insurance (CDI), and might result in substantial additional claims costs. They urged a measured approach, phased implementation and interagency coordination to avoid conflicts.
Committee members repeatedly noted the need for science‑based standards and for coordination with CDI; the author said AB 1642 sets standards for what contaminants to test for and which levels are safe, while leaving testing protocols to existing hygienist practices. The committee voted to do pass AB 1642 to Appropriations; the recorded tally was 5 to 2 after a correction to the clerk's earlier announcement.