BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1157
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2009-2010 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1157
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
AMENDED: April 19, 2010
FISCAL: Yes HEARING
DATE:April 22, 2010
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:
Rachel Machi Wagoner
SUBJECT : EDUCATION: HEALTHY SCHOOLS ACT OF 2010
SUMMARY :
Existing law, under the Healthy Schools Act 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 school site.
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 programs for schools and child daycare
facilities.
7)Requires DPR to maintain a website with specific
information, and requires DPR to ensure that adequate
SB 1157
Page 2
resources are available to respond to inquiries from schools
regarding the use of integrated pest management practices.
8)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.
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 :
1)Prohibits all public schools from using the most highly
toxic pesticides, as listed, on school property.
2)Provides that its provisions would not apply to
antimicrobial pesticides; products deployed in the form of a
self-contained bait or trap; or as a crack and crevice
treatment; agricultural uses; or activities undertaken by
participants in agricultural vocational education, as
specified.
3)Authorizes the school principal to use the most highly toxic
pesticides, as defined under certain circumstances, and for
a specified period of time.
4)Requires DPR, beginning January 1, 2011, and annually
thereafter, to set an adequate fee on manufacturers or
importers of the most highly toxic pesticides, as defined.
The fee shall be set in an amount that is sufficient and
limited to reimbursement to the department for the cost of
administering, and school districts for the costs of
implementing this act.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of 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)
SB 1157
Page 3
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)DPR 2007 Survey . There currently are 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 conduct 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 the 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 percent report adopting between two and four of
the seven voluntary IPM policies. However, only 11 percent
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.
3)Amendments needed .
a) In the legislative findings and declarations,
subsection (3), the bill states:
"A recent study reveals that female teachers have a
significantly higher cancer rate compared to other
women of the same age and race including breast
cancer, lymphoma and leukemia, which pervious studies
have shown are linked to pesticides."
SB 1157
Page 4
This statement does not cite the referenced study and
may be misleading because it appears that the referenced
study is concluding that there is a causal relationship
between the occurrences of cancer and pesticide
exposure. Unless that is true, this statement should be
stricken.
b) Section 17615, subsection (c), beginning on page 4 of
this bill allows for an exemption from the ban when
specified criteria are met. While an exemption is
warranted for cases when districts need to use specified
pesticides, as written the bill would undermine the
existing Healthy Schools Act of 2000 in that it allows
the right-to-know and right-to-act provisions of the act
to be bypassed by the use of the exemption language.
This provision should be amended to be consistent with
the Healthy Schools Act of 2000.
c) In Section 17615 (g) (2), page 5, lines 33 to 40, the
bill requires DPR to set and collect a fee to reimburse
DPR and schools for the costs of implementing this
measure. Given the complicated nature of setting a
reimbursement rate, an amendment should be taken to
require DPR to develop regulations for setting the fee
and reimbursement rate.
4)Prior and related legislation . AB 821 (Brownley) of 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, (Statutes of 2006), extended
the Healthy Schools Act to private child care facilities.
AB 1006 (Chu) of 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.
5)Support Arguments . Proponents argue that many studies have
found serious toxic effects of pesticides at levels much
SB 1157
Page 5
lower than prescribed on labels for use. The proponents
cite a California State Department of Public Health, Office
of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment report
published in 2005 that the following chronic diseases were
linked to pesticide exposure: asthma, reproductive outcomes,
cancer, dermatitis, learning impairments, Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease and chronic fatigue syndrome.
The proponents also cite that the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's biomonitoring program found high
levels of pesticides in children with an average of seven
pesticides in each child. Supporters state that 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.
The proponents state that "there are over 1,000 school
districts in the state with over six million children
spending on average 6 hours a day at approximately 9,900
school sites. Despite great effort by DPR, there was no
sustained increase in school districts adopting indicator
practices associated with least toxic pest management in the
last 4 years surveyed. Education is not enough."
The proponents believe that "it is crucial that SB 1157 be
passed to ensure an environment in which children are given
a chance to thrive. Every child and school staff should be
able to attend work at school without undertaking
unnecessary risk of a serious disease later in life that
would not only lower quality of life for the individual, but
be of cost to families, communities and our state."
6)Opposition Arguments . Opponents contend that this bill is
"based upon inaccurate assumptions about how pest control is
performed in and around schools. Pest control today,
especially structural pest control, is vastly different than
it was 25 years ago. The opponents state that in the
findings and declarations, the bill states that many schools
'continue to use highly toxic pesticides,' and the operative
section of the proposed bill states (section 17615)
enumerate several lists of materials that are proposed to be
banned for use in public schools." According to the Pest
SB 1157
Page 6
Control Operators of California, most of the material
contained in these lists, and certainly the most highly
toxic materials are already prohibited from use at schools.
The opposition continues to state that "the sponsors of the
bill cite numerous instances of pesticide accidents between
1992 and 2007 in California schools. Prior to 2000, there
was no comprehensive law governing the use of pesticides in
schools. The Healthy Schools Act was passed in 2000,
establishing a new standard for the use of pesticides in
California schools." The opposition asks that the
Legislature review and compare data regarding pesticide
accidents on school sites pre and post 2000. The opposition
contends that, in their experience, the cases have decreased
dramatically.
The opposition believes that anyone using pesticides on
school premises be a licensed applicator to ensure the
safety of the students, teachers, staff and visitors.
However, the opposition states that it is not in the public
interest and health and safety are not best served by a
complete ban on the use of pesticides in schools. There are
certain instances were it is necessary to use pesticides to
protect children from diseases such as Malaria, yellow fever
and West Nile virus.
SOURCE : Parents for a Safer Environment
SUPPORT : American Lung Association
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Church IMPACT
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
California School Health Centers Association
Clean Water Action
Coalition for Clean Air
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Environmental Working Group
Mothers of Marin Against the Spray
National Nurses Organizing Committee
Pesticide Watch
SB 1157
Page 7
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San
Francisco-Bay Area Chapter
Sierra Club California
OPPOSITION :Pest Control Operators of California
Western Plant Health Association