BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1405
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1405
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
AMENDED: April 21, 2014
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 30, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT: Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : PESTICIDES: SCHOOL FACILITIES
SUMMARY :
Existing law , under the Healthy Schools Act (HSA) of 2000:
1) Requires schools to annually provide a written notice to
staff and parents with the name of all pesticide products
expected to be applied at the school during the upcoming
year.
2) Requires schools to post a warning sign at each area of
the school site where pesticides will be applied.
3) Requires schools to keep records for four years of all
pesticides used at the schoolsite.
4) Prohibits the use of a pesticide that has been granted
conditional registration, an interim registration, or an
experimental use permit.
5) Exempts agriculture vocational programs if the activity
is necessary to meet curriculum requirements.
6) Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to
promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption of integrated
pest management (IPM) programs for schools and child
daycare facilities.
7) Requires DPR to maintain a website with specific
information, and requires DPR to ensure that adequate
resources are available to respond to inquiries from
SB 1405
Page 2
schools regarding the use of IPM practices.
8) Requires DPR to establish an IPM training program to
facilitate the adoption of a model integrated pest
management program and least-hazardous pest control
practices by schools.
9) Requires DPR to prepare a school pesticide use form to
be used by licensed and certified pest control operators
when they apply any pesticides at a school.
This bill amends HSA as follows:
1) If a school chooses to use certain pesticides,
a. Requires the school designee, at the end of
each year, or more often at his or her discretion, to
submit to DPR a copy of the records, as specified, of
all pesticide use at the schoolsite.
b. Requires the school designee to develop and
post on the website of the schoolsite an IPM plan for
the schoolsite or school district. If the schoolsite
does not maintain a website, the school designee would
be required to include the IPM plan with a certain
annual notification sent to staff and parents or
guardians of pupils enrolled at the schoolsite.
2) Authorizes a school designee to do these things related
to an IPM plan if the schoolsite does not choose to use
certain pesticides.
3) Requires DPR to develop a training course to train any
person who plans to apply pesticides on a schoolsite, and
would require the training program to cover IPM and the
safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health.
4) Requires the training course to be provided by DPR or an
agent authorized by the DPR.
5) Requires any person hired to, or who in the course of
his or her work plans to, apply a pesticide at a schoolsite
SB 1405
Page 3
subject to the act, to annually complete a training
provided by DPR or an agent authorized by DPR.
6) Requires the training to include IPM and the safe use of
pesticides in relation to the unique nature of schoolsites
and children's health.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . According to the author, SB 1405
strengthens HSA, by requiring schools and child daycare
facilities, which choose to use certain pesticides, to
report the pesticide use to DPR and provide a written IPM
plan to parents of pupils enrolled at the school or child
day care facility. The author states that this bill also
requires school staff and professional pest control
applicators, hired to apply pesticides on school sites, to
undergo an annual training on integrated pest management
and safe pesticide use.
The author states that current law directs the DPR to
support schools in adopting an IPM program that reduces
children's exposure to pesticides by following least toxic
pest management practices; however, this program is
voluntary. In addition, current law requires a
right-to-know posting and notification of pesticides that
are applied to public schools and child daycare facilities,
so parents and staff receive warning.
According to the author, a 2010 DPR survey revealed that
68% of school districts have adopted IPM practices and most
schools using these practices found them to be more
effective and no more costly than the conventional
practices they had used in the past. The author believes
that while many schools are on the way to adopting IPM
practices, some others are lagging behind. Unfortunately,
highly toxic pesticides are still being used in and around
California schools and incidents of toxic pesticide
exposure in schools go unreported, indicating the
importance for all schools and child daycare facilities to
adopt IPM policies and practices.
SB 1405
Page 4
2) What is IPM ? According to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, IPM is an effective and
environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that
relies on a combination of common-sense practices. IPM
programs use current, comprehensive information on the life
cycles of pests and their interaction with the environment.
This information, in combination with available pest
control methods, is used to manage pest damage by the most
economical means, and with the least possible hazard to
people, property, and the environment.
The IPM approach can be applied to both agricultural and
non-agricultural settings, such as the home, garden, and
workplace. IPM takes advantage of all appropriate pest
management options including, but not limited to, the
judicious use of pesticides.
3) IPM in Schools . Schools are currently authorized, but
not required, to adopt IPM practices. DPR's School IPM
program promotes voluntary adoption of IPM in public
schools primarily by training, outreach, and assistance
with HSA implementation. In addition, DPR has established
a comprehensive school IPM website and developed a variety
of technical resources for schools.
There are currently no set standards for measuring success of
IPM programs due to the diverse nature of pest management
systems. To define and measure IPM progress in California
schools, DPR developed a series of school IPM surveys. After
review of IPM literature and discussions with school IPM
coordinators, DPR categorized four activities as central to a
successful school IPM program: a) monitoring pest populations;
b) emphasizing pest prevention; c) keeping records; and d) using
pesticides, preferably the least hazardous, only as a last
resort. DPR's latest school IPM survey was conducted in 2007
and was sent to 974 public school IPM coordinators. Over half
of the school districts responded. DPR found that school
district compliance with HSA increased significantly between
2002 and 2007, with most of the change occurring between 2002
and 2004. As of 2007, a majority of California's schools had
implemented at least three of the four HSA requirements, with
about two-thirds being in full compliance. Of those districts
that responded to DPR's survey, 52% reported adopting between
SB 1405
Page 5
two and four of the seven voluntary IPM policies. However, only
11% of the districts reported adopting six or more of the
voluntary IPM policies. DPR states that this indicates the
importance of continuing IPM outreach efforts to school
districts.
In February 2010, DPR reported that their training program had
reached nearly three-quarters of the state's more than 1,000
school districts, and that districts are learning about, and
using, the information resources introduced during the training.
In addition, more California schools are using IPM compatible
practices, and, with the addition of training in IPM practices
specific to individual districts' pest concerns, DPR anticipates
an increase in their adoption of IPM and a reduction in the use
of hazardous pesticides.
4) IPM and Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) . In
1994, LAUSD was honored with one of DPR's first IPM
Innovator Awards. LAUSD helped pioneer IPM practices for
school sites and was praised for encouraging other
districts to adopt a similar approach.
In 1999, in collaboration with California Safe Schools, LAUSD
became one of the first districts in the nation to adopt an
IPM policy, with detailed guidelines and procedures and a
15-member oversight committee that meets monthly. The
program's goal was to provide for the safest and
lowest-risk approach to manage pest problems, with little
or no pesticide use, while protecting people and property.
Today LAUSD is a recognized leader in school IPM.
LAUSD continued to refine and improve its program and in
2007, DPR gave the district a rare, second IPM Innovator
Award.
While a school district must craft an IPM program best
suited to its needs and resources, LAUSD has developed and
field-tested approaches that can prove valuable to other
districts. Rather than relying on pesticide use as a first
choice, LAUSD pest management staff worked on several
options as primary pest management solutions. These
include inspection, sanitation, behavioral practices,
SB 1405
Page 6
mechanical pest eradication, and training or consulting
opportunities that may correct problems and prevent
recurrence of infestations.
The district's IPM oversight committee helps set up
non-pesticide pest management practices and periodically
reviews all materials on the district's approved pesticide
product list. In the past several years, that list has
been pared from 136 to 30 pesticide products.
Pest management technicians receive at least 40 hours of
IPM training yearly. Groundskeepers (gardeners, tree
surgeons, landscape employees) receive at least four hours
of IPM training each year. The district's independent pest
management expert rides with two technicians periodically
to train and advise them in their fieldwork. Training of
site-based custodial supervisors is ongoing, part of their
in-service training. Other maintenance, food service and
management employees receive periodic training and updates
yearly. LAUSD reaches the public in many ways, including
its website, LAUSD Parent Summit, IPM workshops and
presentations at seminars, conferences and meetings.
As the nation's second largest school district, LAUSD faces
challenges in upholding its high IPM standards. With
boundaries that encompass 710 square miles, the district
has 1,065 schools and another 208 adult schools,
preschools, occupational and other education centers. Its
total enrollment is about 1.1 million children and adults.
It has more than 68,000 employees. Its cafeterias serve
more than 500,000 meals a day.
LAUSD's website includes its policy, procedures manual,
quick reference guide for site administrators, approved
pesticide list, pest management inspection reports, a
training slide show, and informative "Pest of the Month"
newsletters.
5) Arguments in opposition . SB 1405 would weaken HSA
SB 1405
Page 7
through a number of mechanisms:
a) SB 1405 proposes using a school website as means of
notifying parents of pesticides products allowed on
schoolsites, and pesticide applications. It would allow
a "SCHOOL DESIGNEE" to develop the IPM Plan, and to
provide detailed information about applications, "at the
end of the school year, or at his or her discretion."
This bill assumes all parents have a computer and/or
internet access. Relying solely on school district
website would be unreliable, since the quality of
technical expertise varies vastly from school district
to school district, and the technical skills to maintain
and update the website may not exist. It also leaves
parents, teachers and administrators, and other school
stakeholders out of the process of designing and
implementing an IPM plan. Suggested Amendment:
This bill should be amended to mandate written
notification to all parents/guardians, teachers, and
staff at the beginning of the school year including
written notices of all pesticide products approved and
any and all pesticide applications.
b) SB 1405 broadly defines "SCHOOL DESIGNEE." A
school designee could be anyone such as a teacher,
playground supervisor or janitor. Opposition is deeply
concerned that the bill would give the "SCHOOL DESIGNEE"
the ability to provide detailed information "at end of
the school year, OR AT HIS OR HER DISCRETION." Allowing
the "SCHOOL DESIGNEE" the ability to decide "at their
discretion" when information would be provided is not in
the best interest of the health and safety of children,
teachers, staff or other stakeholders who work and/or
visit school sites.
The bill should be amended to define "school designee."
A potential solution would be to add to the existing
definition that "school designee" shall be
management-level district employee.
c) Opposition is greatly concerned that the "SCHOOL
SB 1405
Page 8
DESIGNEE" will determine what is "deemed necessary" and
allows "SCHOOL DESIGNEE" to design the IPM school plan
without input from stakeholders.
The bill should be amended to require the school
designee to consult with the relevant School Site
Council, PTA, and concerned parents and teachers in the
development of an IPM plan. The school district should
provide a written copy of the IPM Policy to parents at
the beginning of the school year, and also post the plan
on the district website where it can easily be located,
viewed, and downloaded.
d) SB 1405 continues to exempt "certain pesticides"
which refer to gels and bait from the notification
procedures of HSA. The opposition believes that SB
1405, by continuing to exempt gels and baits, implies
that they have no potential health effects. This is
inaccurate, since many gels and baits off-gas and could
have serious health effects to students with certain
health conditions. Opposition asserts that if SB 1405
continues to advocate that parents do not have to be
notified of these applications and children or teachers,
while at school, had a reaction to these products, the
source would be unknown, and treatment could be delayed.
In the case of students, teachers, or staff with
sensitivities such as asthma or anaphylactic shock, this
continued exemption could have dire consequences.
The opposition feels the bill should be amended to
remove the exemption for gels and baits.
e) According to the opposition, SB 1405 promotes
training by video for individuals responsible for
pesticide applications on school sites without any
process to verify training. The application of
pesticides is a serious matter, which in some instances
can have potential serious health and safety
consequences. It cannot be overlooked that these
applications are being made at schools, which care for
our most vulnerable population, children. To suggest
training be provided by video is of extreme concern,
especially since the prior HSA provides funding to DPR
SB 1405
Page 9
to perform direct in-person training. Each campus has
unique issues and concerns that can best be addressed
during an in-person training, not video. In addition,
the bill states that a third party will create the
videos, yet names no third party and notes "agent" but
fails to define.
The opposition believes the bill should be amended to
only consider creating videos for certain posting and
notification issues related to HSA. Videos should not
be allowed to take the place of hands-on pesticide
application training, or pest control techniques. If
videos of any kind are created, there must be an added
measure to certify the identity of the individual taking
the course, and their satisfactory completion. SB 1405
states there will be fines for non-compliance for
failure to watch video training, or provide pesticide
application paperwork.
1) Prior legislation . SB 394 (DeSaulnier) of 2011 would
have prohibited any pesticide that is not a gel or paste
deployed as crack and crevice treatment, a self-contained
bait or spot treatment to be used on schoolsites, and
required all schools to send at least one person to one DPR
training at least once every three years. SB 394 was held
in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier) of 2010 was similar to SB 394 when
passed by this Committee in April 2010, on a 6-2 vote. In
its final form, SB 1157 would have required the adoption of
an IPM program by all schools and required the DPR to
reimburse school districts for the costs of IPM training.
SB 1157 was vetoed by the Governor.
SOURCE : California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center for Environmental Health
SUPPORT : Californians for Pesticide Reform
Communities for a New California
Community for a Better Shafter
Delano Guardians
Greenfield Walking Group
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San
SB 1405
Page 10
Francisco Bay
Area Chapter
Rural Communities Resource Center
OPPOSITION : Action Now
California Communities Against Toxics
California Safe Schools
Communities for a Safe Environment
Del Amo Action
Desert Citizens Against Pollution
Los Angeles Unified School District
Love and Respect Youth Foundation
Society for Positive Action
Our Right to Know
1 individual