BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 1405
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 17, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Luis Alejo, Chair
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: June 12, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 34-0
SUBJECT : Pesticides: schoolsites.
SUMMARY : Requires, under the Healthy Schools Act of 2000
(HSA), schools and day care facilities, if they choose to use
certain pesticides, to post on their Internet web site an
integrated pest management (IPM) plan, to submit pesticide use
information to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), and
to have specified staff trained in IPM strategies.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Defines "integrated pest management plan" as a written plan
based on a template provided or approved by the DPR that
outlines a strategy for IPM.
2)Revises the statutory definition of "school designee" to have
the same meaning as "IPM coordinator," and defines both as a
school or district employee, instead of an individual,
identified by a schoolsite or school district to carry out, or
to ensure compliance with, the requirements of the HSA.
3)Revises legislative intent to clarify that it is the intent of
the Legislature that all school personnel involved in the
application of a pesticide at a schoolsite be trained in
integrated pest management and the safe use of pesticides in
relation to the unique nature of schoolsites and children's
health.
4)Requires, if a schoolsite chooses to use a non-exempt
pesticide, at the end of each calendar year, or more often at
the discretion of a school designee, the school designee to
submit to DPR a copy of the records of all pesticide use at
the schoolsite for the calendar year, as specified.
5)Authorizes the school designee to develop and post on the
Internet web site of the schoolsite an IPM plan, which must
include pesticide use information, for the schoolsite or the
school district. Authorizes, if the schoolsite does not
SB 1405
Page 2
maintain an Internet web site, the school designee to include
the IPM plan with the annual pesticide use notification sent
to staff and parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at the
schoolsite.
6)Requires, if a schoolsite chooses to use a non-exempt
pesticide, the school designee to post on the Internet web
site of the schoolsite an IPM plan, which must include
pesticide use information, for the schoolsite or the school
district. Requires, if the schoolsite does not maintain an
Internet web site, the school designee to include the IPM plan
with the annual pesticide use notification sent to staff and
parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at the schoolsite.
7)Requires the annual written notification on pesticide use
provided to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils
enrolled at a schoolsite to include the Internet address where
the schoolsite IPM plan may be found if the school has posted
the plan. Requires the notice to also inform staff and
parents and guardians of pupils enrolled at a schoolsite that
they may view a copy of the integrated pest management plan in
the schoolsite office.
8)Requires, commencing July 1, 2016, the school designee and any
person, including, but not necessarily limited to, the person
who applies pesticides at a schoolsite, to annually complete a
training course provided by DPR that includes IPM and the safe
use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health.
9)Requires DPR to develop a template for an IPM plan to be used
by schoolsites or school districts.
10)Requires DPR to develop and provide a training course to
train any person who intends to apply pesticides on a
schoolsite. Requires the training course to cover IPM and the
safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), for federal regulation of pesticide
distribution, sale, and use (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136 et seq.).
SB 1405
Page 3
2)Authorizes the State's pesticide regulatory program and
mandates DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper,
safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the
production of food and fiber, and for the protection of public
health and safety, and protect the environment from
environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating,
or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and
Agriculture Code (FAC) §11401 et seq.)
3)Establishes the Healthy Schools Act (Education Code
§17608-17613, FAC §13180-13188 and Health and Safety Code
Sections §1596.794 and 1596.845), which, among other things:
a) Requires each schoolsite (child day care facility,
kindergarten, elementary or secondary school) to keep
records for four years of all pesticides used at the
schoolsite and to make this information available upon
request to the public.
b) Requires each schoolsite to annually provide a written
notice to staff and parents of students enrolled at the
schoolsite of information about all pesticide products
expected to be applied at the school during the upcoming
year.
c) Requires each schoolsite to provide the opportunity for
school staff and parents or guardians of students to
register to receive notification of individual pesticide
applications at the schoolsite.
d) Requires each schoolsite to post a warning sign at each
area of the schoolsite where pesticides will be applied.
e) Prohibits the use of a pesticide at a schoolsite that
has been granted conditional registration, an interim
registration or an experimental use permit or if the
pesticide is subject to an experimental registration, as
specified, or if DPR cancels or suspends registration, or
requires phase out of use of that pesticide.
f) Exempts a pesticide product deployed in the form of a
self-contained bait or trap, a gel or paste deployed as a
crack and crevice treatment, any pesticide exempted from
regulation pursuant to FIFRA, or antimicrobial pesticides,
including sanitizers and disinfectants, from the HSA record
SB 1405
Page 4
keeping and notification requirements.
g) Requires DPR to promote and facilitate the voluntary
adoption of IPM programs for schools and child day care
facilities.
h) Requires DPR to maintain a website with specific
pesticide and IPM information, and requires DPR to ensure
that adequate resources are available to respond to
inquiries from schools regarding the use of IPM practices.
i) Requires DPR to establish an IPM training program to
facilitate the adoption of a model IPM program and
least-hazardous pest control practices by schools.
j) 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.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
Need for the bill : According to the author's office, "A 2010
DPR survey revealed that 68 percent 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. 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 day care facilities to
adopt IPM policies and practices.
SB 1405 strengthens the Healthy School Act of 2000, by requiring
schools and child day care facilities, which choose to use
certain pesticides, to report the pesticide use to the DPR and
provide a written integrated pest management plan to parents of
pupils enrolled at the school or child day care facility. This
bill also requires school staff and professional pest control
applicators, hired to apply pesticides on school sites, to
SB 1405
Page 5
undergo an annual training on integrated pest management and
safe pesticide use."
Effects of pesticide exposure : The United States Environmental
Protection Agency reports that the adverse effects of pesticide
exposure range from mild symptoms of dizziness and nausea to
serious, long-term neurological, developmental, and reproductive
disorders. According to the American Medical Association,
pesticide poisoning is a commonly under-diagnosed illness, as it
can resemble acute upper respiratory tract illness,
conjunctivitis, gastrointestinal illness, and other conditions.
Children are at a greater risk from exposure to some pesticides
for a number of reasons. Children's internal organs are still
developing and maturing and their enzymatic, metabolic, and
immune systems may provide less natural protection than those of
an adult. There are "critical periods" in human development
when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an
individual's biological system operates. In addition, children
may be more likely to be exposed to certain pesticides because
they behave differently than do adults. For instance,
children's behaviors, such as playing on the floor or on the
lawn where pesticides are commonly applied, or putting objects
in their mouths, increase their chances of exposure to
pesticides.
Integrated pest management (IPM): California law (FAC §13181)
defines IPM at school sites and daycare facilities as a pest
management strategy that focuses on long-term prevention or
suppression of pest problems through a combination of
techniques, such as monitoring for pest presence and
establishing treatment threshold levels, using non-chemical
practices to make the habitat less conducive to pest
development, improving sanitation, and employing mechanical and
physical controls. Pesticides that pose the least possible
hazard and are effective in a manner that minimizes risks to
people, property, and the environment, are used only after
careful monitoring indicates they are needed according to
pre-established guidelines and treatment thresholds.
The Healthy Schools Act (HSA) of 2000 : The HSA (AB 2260,
SB 1405
Page 6
Shelley, Chapter 718, Statutes of 2000) went into effect in
January of 2001 and aims to reduce children's exposure to
pesticides in schools through the schools' voluntary adoption of
IPM and least-toxic methods of pest control. The HSA was
amended in 2005 (AB 405, Montanez, 566, Statutes of 2005) to
prohibit the use of certain pesticides at schools and public
child day care facilities. In 2006, AB 2865 (Torrico, Chapter
865, Statutes of 2006), expanded the requirements in the HSA to
also include private child day care facilities.
There are essentially two parts to the HSA: pesticide use
posting and notification requirements for schools and daycares,
and a requirement for DPR to establish and support a voluntary
IPM program for the same facilities. The intent of this bill is
to make the currently voluntary IPM program mandatory; however,
it does not specifically require schools and day care facilities
to develop an IPM plan. It does require those facilities, if
they choose to use certain pesticides, to post on their Internet
web site an IPM plan, therefore inferring that the development
of an IPM plan is required.
Compliance with the requirements of the HSA : HSA statute
requires school districts and day care centers to: notify
parents and school staff of specific pesticides applied in
schools annually; keep a registry of parents and guardians
interested in notification of individual pesticide applications;
post signs on school grounds if pesticides are applied; and,
keep records of pesticide applications for four years.
According to the results of a 2010 DPR school district survey
(day care centers were surveyed separately), DPR reports that
almost all reporting school districts post the required warning
signs and notify families and staff annually of expected
pesticide use. Eighty-seven percent annually provide staff and
parents with written notification of expected pesticide use at
their school. Roughly three-quarters of districts maintain a
list of parents who want notification about specific pesticide
applications, and two-thirds maintain school site records of all
pesticides used for at least four years. Despite the law being
in place since 2001, not all districts complied with the four
requirements of the HSA. The survey found that three factors
significantly predict better compliance with the HSA by school
districts: attending DPR's IPM training, contracting for pest
SB 1405
Page 7
management by licensed professionals, and employing more
experienced IPM coordinators.
Day care facilities seem to be complying with the requirements
of the HSA at a lower rate than schools. Results of a 2010 DPR
survey found that fewer than half of the surveyed child care
centers using non-exempt pesticide application methods (e.g.,
sprays and foggers) reported that they always notified parents
and posted warning signs when pesticides are applied in their
centers. Among the centers reporting non-exempt pesticide use,
only 57% reported keeping records.
The April 2014 California Department of Public Health report,
Agricultural Pesticide Use Near Public Schools in California,
notes that the HSA contains no specific enforcement authority
for HSA requirements.
DPR's current IPM program : As reported in Outlooks on Pest
Management, DPR's School IPM Program promotes effective,
long-term pest prevention by helping school districts integrate
IPM into their existing maintenance and operations activities.
DPR promotes voluntary adoption of IPM in public schools
primarily by training, outreach, and assistance with HSA
implementation. DPR presents a hands-on train-the-trainer
program that teaches basic IPM principles and practices to
district IPM coordinators. DPR provides school district staff
with tools to implement their own IPM training and with easy and
inexpensive ways they can "build pest problems out."
DPR established a comprehensive school IPM website in 2000 to
provide information on pests, IPM, pesticides, and other topics.
DPR also developed a variety of technical resources including:
a model IPM program guidebook to help districts adopt an IPM
program tailored to pests and conditions in California; fact
sheets on common pests and IPM solutions; interactive training
DVDs; IPM curricula; recordkeeping calendars; teacher
pest-prevention awareness posters; and articles on IPM-related
topics in trade journals. DPR also gives presentations
promoting IPM policies, programs, and practices at meetings
attended by maintenance and operations directors, facility
planners, school administrators, educators, and parents.
To date, DPR has held more than 50 IPM training workshops,
during which they have trained about 2,000 people from about 86%
of the state's districts, which account for 95% of California's
student population. This bill would require the school designee
SB 1405
Page 8
and any person who applies a pesticide at a schoolsite to
annually complete a DPR training course that includes IPM and
the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health.
School participation in IPM : According to DPR survey results,
by 2010 over two-thirds of reporting districts adopted an IPM
program. The survey found that of the three voluntary IPM
policies and practices, districts were most likely to have a
written list of pesticide products approved for use in district
schools. A majority of reporting districts had a written policy
requiring use of the least toxic pest management practices,
while roughly one-third required monitoring of pest levels.
DPR reports that district-reported adoption of an IPM program is
the best predictor of district use of better IPM practices,
indicating that these districts understand what is involved in
an IPM program. DPR also reported that DPR's IPM training is
positively correlated with certain district characteristics and
actions. Trained districts outperform untrained districts in
awareness and use of more IPM resources, and use of ant IPM
practices. Training, however, does not affect the reported
adoption of an IPM program.
Almost all districts used at least one pesticide product during
the reporting year that is regulated by the Healthy Schools Act.
These pesticide products, such as broadcast pesticide sprays,
are referred to as non-exempt products. However, almost all
districts also report using physical controls for weed
management and sanitation for ant management, which are both
IPM-compatible practices.
The 2010 DPR survey on day care centers found that only 25% of
respondents reported knowing what the term IPM meant, although
68% of centers reported the use of at least one IPM-based
strategy, such as eliminating food sources or sealing cracks.
SB 1405
Page 9
Barriers to IPM adoption : DPR's survey asked about eight
barriers, such as understaffing, to using IPM practices. DPR
found that districts with an IPM program perceive fewer barriers
than those without an IPM program and less experienced IPM
coordinators report more barriers to the use of IPM practices in
their district. Finally, DPR found that contracting districts
in the Sierra region perceive more barriers than any other
region.
Related prior legislation :
SB 394 (DeSaulnier, 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 would have 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, 2010). Would have required the adoption of
an IPM program by all schools and required DPR to reimburse
school districts for the costs of IPM training. SB 1157 was
vetoed by the Governor.
Double referral. This bill was double referred to the Assembly
Education Committee and the Assembly Environmental Safety and
Toxic Materials Committee. It passed out of the Assembly
Education Committee on a 5 - 0 vote on June 11, 2014.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support:
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council (co-sponsor)
Center for Environmental Health (co-sponsor)
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Communities for a New California
Community for a Better Shafter
Delano Guardians
Greenfield Walking Group
Natural Resources Defense Council
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter
Rural Communities Resource Center
SB 1405
Page 10
Opposition
None received.
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965