BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Gloria Romero, Chair
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1157
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
AMENDED: April 5, 2010
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 14, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
NOTE : This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Rules. A "do pass" motion should include
referral to the Committee on Rules.
SUBJECT : Use of pesticides on school property.
KEY POLICY ISSUES
Should schools be prohibited from using certain pesticides on
school property?
Should schools be allowed to use these banned pesticides in
an emergency or if a lower risk pesticide cannot resolve the
pest problem?
Existing programs of integrated pest management are currently
voluntary for schools. Should these programs be mandatory
before the legislature prohibits the use of certain
pesticides?
Should school district governing boards be required to
discuss but not vote on the decision of a school principal to
suspend this ban?
Should a fee be imposed upon manufacturers and importers of
these pesticides?
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits schools from using the most highly toxic
pesticides, as defined, on school property unless certain
conditions are met, and imposes a fee upon manufacturers or
importers of those pesticides.
BACKGROUND
SB 1157
Page 2
Current law establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Education Code ( 17608-17613), which among other things:
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.
Requires schools to post a warning sign at each area of
the schoolsite where pesticides will be applied.
Requires schools to keep records for four years of all
pesticides used at the schoolsite.
Prohibits the use of a pesticide that has been granted
conditional registration, an interim registration or an
experimental use permit.
Exempts agriculture vocational programs if the activity
is necessary to meet curriculum requirements.
Current law also establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Food and Agriculture Code ( 13180-13188) which among other
things:
Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to
promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption of
integrated pest management programs for schools and
child day care facilities.
Requires DPR to maintain a website with specific
information, and requires DPR to ensure that adequate
resources are available to respond to inquiries from
schools regarding the use of integrated pest management
practices.
Requires DPR to establish an integrated pest management
training program to facilitate the adoption of a model
integrated pest management program and least-hazardous
pest control practices by schools.
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.
ANALYSIS
SB 1157
Page 3
This bill prohibits any public school from using the most
highly toxic pesticides, as defined, on school property
unless certain conditions are met, and imposes a fee upon
manufacturers or importers of specified pesticides.
Specifically, this bill:
1) Prohibits any public school from using the most highly
toxic pesticides on school property, unless the pest
problem to be addressed cannot be effectively managed
with a lower risk pesticide.
2) Defines "most highly toxic pesticides" as:
a) Pesticide products that are neurotoxic
organophosphorus compounds, as specified.
b) Pesticide products containing active
ingredients rated by the United State Environmental
Protection Agency as A or B carcinogens or
substances listed as known or probably human
carcinogens, as specified.
c) Pesticide products containing active
ingredients that cause birth defects, reproductive
harm or developmental harm, as specified.
d) Pesticide products with high acute toxicity,
as specified.
3) Authorizes any school principal to suspend the
prohibitions against the use of pesticides specified in
this bill if he or she finds that there is a pest
control emergency and all of the following conditions
and definitions apply:
a) The principal deems that the immediate use of
a banned pesticide is necessary to protect the
health and safety of pupils, staff or other persons
or school property.
b) The pesticides used are the lowest risk
available to address the problem.
c) The suspension does not last longer than seven
days and is limited to a specific application site.
d) Pupils, staff or other people not directly
involved in the use of the pesticides are not
present at the site during use of the pesticides,
and the site is posted pursuant to existing
requirements with information about the use of
pesticides.
e) The principal is required to notify the school
SB 1157
Page 4
district superintendent within 48 hours of
pesticide application and include the following
information which must be kept in a manner easily
accessible to the public:
i) The reasons for finding that a pest
control emergency exists.
ii) The subsequent action taken by
school personnel or outside contractors to
control the emergency, including the
pesticides used, their active ingredients, the
amount, their purpose and which of the banned
categories the pesticide is in.
f) The district superintendent is required to:
i) Put notice of the exemption on the
agenda of the school district's next board
meeting for review, although the board is not
required to make any decision regarding the
item.
ii) Provide to the governing board an
annual summary of all exemptions used on
district property, which the board must make
easily accessible to the public.
iii) Include a list of the materials used
pursuant to the suspension, under the heading
"Emergency Use of Banned Pesticides" in the
school's first notification of intended
pesticide use following the emergency use of a
banned pesticide.
4) Exempts the following from the provisions of this bill:
a) Sanitizers and disinfectants.
b) Pesticide products deployed in the form of a
self-contained bait or trap.
c) Gels or pastes deployed as crack and crevice
treatment, defined as the application of small
quantities of a pesticide in a building into
openings such as those commonly found at expansion
joints, between levels of construction, and between
equipment and floors.
d) School activities associated with agricultural
vocational education if the activities are
necessary to meet the curriculum requirements of
that program, although this does not relieve
SB 1157
Page 5
schools of any duties pursuant to this bill that
are not directly related to the program curriculum.
e) Agricultural uses.
5) Provides that this bill does not abrogate the authority
of county health officers, the Department of Food and
Agriculture, mosquito and vector control districts, the
Department of Public Health or other state agencies that
are responsible for pest management decisions that may
affect public schools.
6) Specifies that a school district is not precluded from
adopting stricter pesticide use policies or from
enforcing stricter policies that have already been
adopted.
7) Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR),
beginning January 1, 2011 and annually thereafter, to
impose a fee upon manufacturers or importers of the most
highly toxic pesticides in an amount that DPR determines
to be sufficient and limited to reimburse DPR for the
cost of administering this bill, and reimburse local
agencies and school districts for costs of implementing
this bill. This bill establishes the Healthy Schools
Act of 2010 Fund in the State Treasury.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill : According to the author, "current
law only requires a right-to-know posting and
notification of pesticides that will be applied to
public schools. While current law requires the
Department of Pesticide Regulation to support schools in
an Integrated Pest management (IPM) program, the program
is voluntary and although over 70% have taken IPM
training, less than 40% are actually implementing even
half the steps recommended to help facilitate IPM and
only 11% of school districts have adopted six or more of
the seven voluntary IPM policies and practices."
2) Exemption . This bill is currently drafted to allow
pesticide products with high acute toxicity to be used
if the pest problem cannot be effectively managed with a
lower risk pesticide. However, is it the author's
intent to provide this exemption for all pesticides
specified in this bill? Staff recommends an amendment
to clarify the author's intent.
SB 1157
Page 6
3) Does integrated pest management work for schools ? There
are no standards for measuring success due to the
diverse nature of pest management systems used by
schools. The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
developed a series of surveys to define and measure the
progress of schools in implementing integrated pest
management. The most recent survey (2007) found that 70
percent of respondent indicated they have adopted an
integrated pest management program, schools increasingly
felt that adopting an integrated pest management program
resulted in more effective pest management, but there
was no change or agreement on the program's impact on
the long term cost of pest management. This survey also
found that overall, respondents did not see budget
restriction, understaffing, age and condition of school
facilities, inadequate staff training, and other issues
as significant barriers to using integrated pest
management practices.
4) Should integrated pest management be mandatory ? Schools
are currently authorized to adopt integrated pest
management practices. Should schools be required to
adopt these practices to learn about alternatives to
pesticides prior to an outright ban on certain
pesticides?
5) Decision to use pesticides on district governing board
agenda . This bill allows a school principal to suspend
the prohibition on pesticide use if certain conditions
apply. If a principal declares a suspension, existing
notification and posting requirements would apply. This
bill requires the principal to notify the district
superintendent, and requires the issue to be placed on
the agenda of the next meeting of the district governing
board (although the board is not required to make any
decision regarding this issue). Is this an effective
use of the governing board's time, especially
considering that the board is not required to vote or
take any specific action and notification and posting
requirements apply?
6) Fee imposed on manufacturers and importers . This bill
imposes a fee, in an amount determined by DPR, upon
manufacturers and importers of the most highly toxic
pesticides. This fee is meant to cover DPR's cost of
administering the Healthy Schools Act and reimburse
SB 1157
Page 7
schools for costs of implementing the provisions of this
bill. Is it reasonable to impose a fee upon
manufacturers and importers whose products may not be
used by schools? Should the fee be imposed only when
schools purchase these products?
7) Mandate . Legislative Counsel flagged this bill as
imposing a mandate, presumably because it requires
school principals and district superintendents to take
specific action if the principal suspends the ban on the
use of certain pesticides.
8) Prior and related legislation .
AB 821 (Brownley, 2009) would have required
all school districts and non-public elementary
schools (with 50 or more pupils) to purchase and
use only environmentally preferable cleaning and
cleaning maintenance products, if these products
exist. AB 821 was held in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
AB 2865 (Torrico, Chapter 865, 2006)
extended the Healthy Schools Act to private child
care facilities.
AB 1006 (Chu, 2004) would have banned
public schools from using the "most highly toxic"
pesticides on school property. AB 1006 was heard
in then-Senate Agriculture and Water Resources
Committee but a vote was never taken.
1) Policy arguments .
Proponents argue that many studies have found
serious toxic effects of pesticides at levels much
lower than prescribed on labels for use, childhood
diseases and conditions linked to pesticide
exposure have risen, and there have been 502 cases
of reported pesticide accidents resulting in acute
symptoms from 1992-2007 in California schools.
Opponents contend the use of certain
pesticides is necessary to protect children from
diseases such as Malaria, yellow fever and the
bubonic plague as these are infectious diseases
SB 1157
Page 8
carried by pests. Pest management is crucial to
the well being and safety of children.
SUPPORT
American Lung Association
Breast Cancer Fund
California Church IMPACT
California Nurses Association
Clean Water Action
Environmental Working Group
Mothers of Marin Against the Spray
Parents for a Safer Environment
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION
Pest Control Operators of California