AB 841 requires the State Fire Marshal, working with Cal/OSHA (the Division of Occupational Safety and Health), to convene a multidisciplinary working group to develop recommendations on personal protective equipment and decontamination practices for fires involving lithium‑ion batteries. The statute lists specific topics the group must review—PPE to limit exposure to lithium and other heavy metals, technology to clean PPE, differentiated PPE for distinct battery‑fire scenarios, and current decontamination practices—and directs the group to deliver recommendations to the Legislature.
The statute is explicitly temporary: the recommendations must be submitted to the Legislature and the statutory requirement sunsets under related Government Code provisions, and the entire section repeals on January 1, 2031. For fire chiefs, procurement officers, and compliance staff, the bill signals an imminent expert-driven effort that could influence future PPE specifications, training needs, and decontamination protocols even though it creates no mandatory equipment standard by itself.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a State Fire Marshal–led working group, in consultation with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, charged with producing recommendations on PPE and decontamination for lithium‑ion battery incidents. The group must review specific topic areas and submit its recommendations to the Legislature.
Who It Affects
Frontline firefighters and fire departments, State Fire Marshal and Cal/OSHA staff, PPE manufacturers and cleaning‑technology vendors, utilities and battery facility operators, and procurement officers responsible for fire service equipment.
Why It Matters
The recommendations could reshape procurement priorities and on‑scene practices by focusing attention on heavy‑metal exposure and cleaning technology, inform future regulations or standards, and create market demand for new PPE and decontamination solutions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 841 directs the State Fire Marshal to assemble a working group — with input from the Division of Occupational Safety and Health — to examine what personal protective equipment and cleaning practices are most appropriate when firefighters respond to incidents involving lithium‑ion batteries. The legislation specifies the areas the group must consider, but it stops short of requiring the State Fire Marshal to adopt any particular regulation; its output is a set of recommendations delivered to the Legislature.
The bill sets out the composition of the group broadly (members of the State Board of Fire Services, academia, health and safety experts, a Cal/OSHA representative, and a labor organization representing the utility workforce), giving the State Fire Marshal discretion to finalize participants. That mix is intended to combine operational experience with occupational‑health expertise and labor perspectives so recommendations reflect both practical fireground realities and health science.On substance, the working group must evaluate several concrete topics: PPE innovations that limit firefighter exposure to lithium and heavy metals, technologies and processes to clean contaminated turnout gear after battery‑related incidents, whether different incident types (large battery energy storage system fires, household storage units, electric vehicle fires) warrant different protective approaches, and current on‑scene decontamination practices.
The bill therefore frames the problem not only as a procurement question but as an operational and post‑incident workflow challenge: who cleans gear, how, and with what equipment or consumables.Practically speaking, the statute creates a narrow window for concentrated review. The report requirement and the section’s sunset language mean the working group must work quickly, and any follow‑on adoption of standards or mandates would require separate action.
Because the bill is advisory, the most immediate effects are informational: a consolidated set of expert recommendations that local agencies, state regulators, insurers, and equipment vendors will likely use to justify equipment purchases, training updates, and changes to decontamination protocols.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The working group must deliver written recommendations to the Legislature by September 1, 2026.
Membership must include representatives from the State Board of Fire Services, academic and health/safety experts, a Division of Occupational Safety and Health representative, and a labor organization representing the utility workforce.
The group must at minimum evaluate (1) PPE to limit exposure to lithium and other heavy metals, (2) technologies to clean PPE after battery fires, (3) whether PPE should differ across large battery energy storage systems, home systems, and electric vehicles, and (4) current on‑scene decontamination practices.
The bill ties the report submission to Government Code Section 9795 and states that the report requirement becomes inoperative on January 1, 2030 under Government Code Section 10231.5.
Section 13105.1 is a temporary measure that is scheduled to be repealed automatically on January 1, 2031.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings on firefighter cancer risk and battery‑fire incidents
This prefatory section assembles the factual basis the Legislature relied on: higher cancer mortality and incidence among firefighters, IARC’s classification of firefighting exposure as a Group 1 carcinogen, and recent high‑profile lithium‑ion battery incidents that produced prolonged, complex responses. Practically, these findings justify an occupational‑health lens on PPE and signal legislative concern about heavy‑metal exposures distinct from conventional combustion products.
State Fire Marshal must convene a working group
Subsection (a) places the convening obligation squarely on the State Fire Marshal and requires consultation with the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. That consultation requirement embeds Cal/OSHA perspective early in the process and ensures occupational‑safety expertise informs the working group’s scope and deliverables, but it does not transfer rulemaking authority to Cal/OSHA.
Required working group composition
Subsection (b) prescribes membership categories — the State Board of Fire Services, academia, health and safety experts, a Cal/OSHA representative, and a labor organization representing utility workers — while giving the State Fire Marshal discretion to select specific members. The composition requirement balances operational, scientific, regulatory, and labor viewpoints but leaves open questions about representational balance (for example, municipal vs. volunteer fire departments or PPE vendors).
Scope: PPE, cleaning tech, differentiated PPE, and decontamination practices
Subsection (c) enumerates four review topics: PPE to limit lithium/heavy‑metal exposure; technologies to clean PPE after battery incidents; whether different incident types should use different PPE; and current on‑scene decontamination practices. The provision is practical rather than prescriptive — it directs investigation and recommendation rather than setting technical specifications — so outputs may range from narrow procurement specs to broad procedural guidance for fireground operations.
Reporting, statutory compliance, and sunset
Subsection (d) requires delivery of recommendations to the Legislature by September 1, 2026, and (e) links the report to Government Code filing procedures and notes the report‑submission requirement becomes inoperative on January 1, 2030. Subsection (f) sets an automatic repeal of the entire section on January 1, 2031. Together these clauses create a limited window for the working group and produce a discrete legislative product rather than an ongoing administrative program.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Frontline firefighters — The working group’s focus on heavy‑metal exposure and decontamination aims to reduce long‑term health risks and produce practical recommendations remedying known gaps in current PPE and post‑incident handling.
- Local fire departments and incident commanders — A consolidated set of expert recommendations can simplify decision‑making about procurement, training, and on‑scene decontamination protocols and provide defensible justifications for budgeting choices.
- PPE and cleaning‑technology vendors — Focused attention on specialized PPE and cleaning solutions will create clearer technical requirements and demand signals that manufacturers can use to design and market new products.
- Occupational health researchers and academia — The statutory mandate to review and compile evidence provides a centralized dataset and agenda that researchers can use to prioritize studies and validate interventions.
Who Bears the Cost
- State Fire Marshal and Division of Occupational Safety and Health staff — Convening, staffing, and synthesizing the working group’s work will consume agency time and resources without appropriation; staff will also manage stakeholder outreach and report preparation.
- Local fire agencies (especially small or rural departments) — If recommendations lead to revised PPE standards, departments will face procurement, training, and disposal costs, which may be significant for volunteer or underfunded units.
- Taxpayers/local governments — Any subsequent adoption of the group’s recommendations into binding standards or procurement requirements could create unfunded liabilities borne by municipal budgets.
- Battery facility operators and utilities — While the bill targets responders, facility operators may face indirect costs if recommendations trigger stricter on‑site protocols or requirements for facilitated decontamination and coordination with responders.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a core dilemma: protect firefighters now by pursuing precautionary PPE and decontamination measures versus waiting for stronger evidence to avoid costly, operationally disruptive, or unnecessary changes; the working group must navigate urgent health concerns, incomplete science, and uneven fiscal capacity among fire agencies.
The bill is advisory: it commands a review and a set of recommendations, not immediate regulatory changes. That distinction matters because recommendations carry moral and political weight but do not automatically change standards, procurement rules, or employer obligations.
Agencies, local governments, or standard‑setting bodies (for example, NFPA or Cal/OSHA) would need to take additional action to translate recommendations into enforceable requirements.
Implementation challenges are real. Scientific evidence on effective PPE specifically for lithium‑ion battery fires and on the health impacts of lithium and related metals in fireground exposures remains limited and evolving.
The working group will have to balance precaution with evidentiary rigor under a compressed timeline: the report is due relatively quickly and the statutory authority expires within a few years. That constrains the group’s ability to mandate long‑term studies or large field trials before producing guidance.
Finally, any recommendations that imply material changes to PPE—new disposables, specialized cleaning equipment, or enhanced decontamination protocols—create cost and logistical burdens that the bill does not fund, raising equity concerns for smaller jurisdictions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.