BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1157
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
Pedro Nava, Chair
SB 1157 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: June 23, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 21-12
SUBJECT: Healthy Schools Act of 2010.
SUMMARY : Prohibits a public school from using the most highly
toxic pesticides, as defined, on school property and establishes
a fee on manufacturers and brokers of the most highly toxic
pesticides. Specifically, this bill :
1)Makes legislative findings about the health impacts of
pesticides and cites the bill as the Healthy Schools Act of
2010 (Act).
2)Prohibits, when funds are made available, a public school from
using any of the most highly toxic pesticides on school
property unless the pest problem cannot be effectively managed
with an alternative lower risk method, the school consults
with the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), and the
local public health officer determines that a public health
emergency exists.
3)Requires school staff that uses a highest risk pesticide to
submit a pesticide use report in the same manner as
contractors that use any pesticide in accordance with the
Healthy Schools Act of 2000.
4)Defines "most highly toxic pesticides" as pesticides that:
a) Are neurotoxic organophosphorus compounds;
b) Contain active ingredients that are potential human
carcinogens;
c) Contain active ingredients that cause birth defects,
reproductive harm, or developmental harm; or
d) Have high acute toxicity.
5)Exempts from the requirements of this bill the following:
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;
SB 1157
Page 2
d) Activities undertaken at a school by participants in the
state program of agricultural vocational education; and,
e) Agricultural uses.
6)Authorizes the coordinator of the IPM program or the school
district designee to permit the use of a most highly toxic
pesticide in the case of an emergency condition, if specified
conditions are met.
7)Requires the use of highest risk pesticides to be identified
on pesticide use reports. Requires DPR to review school IPM
program pesticide use reports on a quarterly basis, or more
frequently.
8)Requires DPR to require representatives of those school
districts using highest risk pesticides to participate in its
IPM training program within six months. Requires DPR to
assist schools that have used highest risk pesticides in
effectively utilizing the department's IPM program Internet
Web site.
9)Requires notification of exemption to use highest risk
pesticides to be provided to staff and parents or guardians of
pupils enrolled at a school site. Requires the notification
to include the highest risk category of the product used, the
telephone numbers of the school IPM coordinator or designated
appointee and the local county public health officer, and the
Internet Web site address for the DPR school IPM program.
10)Requires each posting, as specified, for application of a
highest risk pesticide to be in both English and Spanish, to
include the toxicity category of the highest risk pesticide
products used, and to provide other specified information.
11)Clarifies that this section does not abrogate the authority
of county health officers, the Department of Food and
Agriculture, mosquito and vector control districts, the State
Department of Public Health, or other state agencies that are
responsible for pest management decisions that may affect
public schools in California.
12)Clarifies that a school district is not precluded from
adopting stricter pesticide use policies or from enforcing
stricter policies than those that have already been adopted.
SB 1157
Page 3
13)Establishes the Healthy Schools Act of 2010 Fund (Fund) in
the State Treasury. Authorizes the Director of Pesticides
Regulation to expend moneys deposited in the Fund, upon
appropriation by statute, for the purposes of implementing the
Act.
14)Requires the DPR, beginning January 1, 2012, and annually
thereafter, to set a fee on manufacturers and brokers of the
most highly toxic pesticides at an amount that DPR determines
to be sufficient and limited to reimburse DPR for the cost of
administering and enforcing the Act, and to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for the costs of implementing
the Act.
15)Requires DPR to develop and adopt regulations to establish
the amount of an adequate fee to implement the Act.
16)Requires DPR to borrow moneys from the Department of
Pesticide Regulation Fund to cover DPR's costs in developing
and adopting regulations and establishing a fee for purposes
of the Act. Requires DPR to repay the loan using moneys from
the Fund, as they become available.
17)Requires DPR to use the databases of all specified public
agencies and international organizations in order to assess
and identify the most highly toxic pesticides.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires DPR to designate a list of restricted materials based
upon, but not limited to: danger of impairment of public
health; hazards to applicators and farm workers; and hazards
to domestic animals (Food and Agricultural Code (FAC)
14004.5).
2)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 school site (child day care facility,
kindergarten, elementary or secondary school) to keep
records for four years of all pesticides used at the school
site and to make this information available upon request to
the public.
SB 1157
Page 4
b) Requires each school site to annually provide a written
notice to staff and parents of students enrolled at the
school site of information about all pesticide products
expected to be applied at the school during the upcoming
year.
c) Requires each school site to provide the opportunity for
school staff and parents or guardians of students to
register to receive notification of individual pesticide
applications at the school site.
d) Requires each school site to post a warning sign at each
area of the school site where pesticides will be applied.
e) Prohibits the use of a pesticide at a school site 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) Requires DPR to promote and facilitate the voluntary
adoption of IPM programs for schools and child day care
facilities.
g) 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.
h) 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.
i) 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.
3)Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), provides the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) with the authority to oversee the sale and use
of pesticides. Requires that all pesticides used in the
United States are registered (licensed) by USEPA. Requires
proper labeling of pesticides and that, if used in accordance
with specifications, the pesticide will not cause an
SB 1157
Page 5
"unreasonable adverse effect on the environment." Requires
that use of each registered pesticide is consistent with use
directions contained on the label.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee, this bill will cost $270,000 to identify pesticides
and develop regulations (from the Department of Pesticide
Regulation Fund-- costs to be repaid from future fee revenues);
$125,000 per year to provide information to schools on
pesticides (from the Healthy Schools Act Fund of 2010-- costs
will be offset with fee revenues); $425,000 per year commencing
in 2011 for collecting fees (from the Healthy Schools Act Fund
of 2010); and an unknown amount for mandated costs to schools
(from the Healthy Schools Act Fund of 2010).
COMMENTS :
Purpose of the bill : According to the author, a 2002 survey of
California's 15 largest school districts found that 54 pesticide
active ingredients that are know or suspected carcinogens,
reproductive or developmental toxins, endocrine disruptors,
acute toxins and/or cholinesterase inhibitors may still be in
use in and around California schools. The author argues that
although school districts are moving towards effective,
efficient, and cost-effective pest control without using harmful
pesticides since the passage of the Healthy Schools Act of 2000
(AB 2260, Shelley), highly toxic pesticides are still in and
around California schools.
Effects of pesticide exposure . The USEPA 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
SB 1157
Page 6
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 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, enacted in
January of 2001, aims to reduce children's exposure to
pesticides in schools through the schools' voluntary adoption of
IPM and least-toxic methods of pest control. There are
essentially two parts to the HSA: pesticide use posting and
notifications requirements for schools and daycares, and a
requirement for DPR to establish and support a voluntary IPM
program for the same facilities.
Compliance with the requirements of the HSA : According to the
results of a 2007 survey, DPR reports that there seems to be
important progress in meeting the requrements of the HSA. As of
2007, almost all school districts post warning signs (95%) and
provide written notification of pesticide use (91%). Eighty
percent (80%) keep a registry of parents of students and staff
who want to benoticed about pesticide applications and 74% keep
pesticide use records up to four years. The report shows that
about two-thirds of all California schools are in full
compliance with the requirements of the HSA.
DPR's current IPM program : As reported in Outlooks on Pest
SB 1157
Page 7
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's training program has reached nearly
three-quarters of the State's approximately 1,000 school
districts.
School participation in IPM : According to DPR survey results,
by 2007 roughly 70% of responding districts had voluntarily
adopted an IPM program, but their activities greatly varied.
The proportion of districts using four key record keeping and
pest monitoring IMP activities peaked in 2004, then declined
slightly in 2007. These include: a written list of approved
pesticide products (61%); a written policy requiring the use of
least toxic practices (52%); a written policy requiring
monitoring of pest levels (24%); and keeping records of pest
monitoring results (22%).
More that two-thirds of responding California school districts
reported that IPM did not impact costs or that it reduced the
costs of pest management. Respondents increasingly felt that
SB 1157
Page 8
adopting an IPM program resulted in more effective pest
management and did not see budget restrictions, understaffing,
age and condition of school facilities, inadequate staff
training, and other issues as significant barriers to using IPM
practices.
Support for the bill : Supporters argue that highest risk
pesticides are being applied rampantly without least toxic
alternatives utilized - there is a need for SB1157. They report
that DPR's School IPM Pesticide Use Report (PUR) Database, which
they contend provides a minimal application estimate occurring
at schools by applicator contractors, shows that: there were
over 700 incidents of highest risk applications at CA schools in
2007 alone; highest risk pesticides were applied to over 567
school sites, belonging to over 197 school districts
(approximately 20% of 1000 school districts); and more than 52
different highest risk pesticide products were applied in
schools. They also argue that schools' "IPM plans" are actually
not universally in place and are not working. They say that
DPR's survey found only 52% of school districts that responded
claim to have a written IPM policy, although 70% claimed that
they have an IPM program. They note that claiming that one has
an IPM program or even a written policy can be very different
from what is actually being practiced.
Opposition to the bill : Opponents, such as DPR, argue that this
bill is unnecessary and would create an unwarranted conflict
with existing IPM principals and practices currently being
implemented at schools and child care facilities. They contend
that the proposed funding source for the implementation of this
bill is a new and additional fee assessed on manufacturers and
importers of "highly toxic" pesticides, even those whose
products are not applied at schools. They say that sufficient
precautionary measures are already incorporated into school IPM
plans and are in addition to existing mandatory restrictions
already printed on the pesticide label. They argue that since
the enactment of the Healthy Schools Act just ten years ago, IPM
has materially reduced student and faculty exposure to
pesticides. They state that further expansion of IPM to new
school districts and better execution of IPM practices statewide
is the best means of reducing harmful exposure.
Duplicative program : This bill sets up a complex and unclear
new system to prohibit schools from using the most highly toxic
pesticides, as defined, and sets up a system for identifying and
SB 1157
Page 9
levying a fee on these chemicals. Under the HSA of 2000, DPR
has already established a comprehensive school IPM program
focusing on reducing toxic pesticide use. DPR has achieved good
compliance with the requirements of the HSA and has encouraging
voluntary participation in IPM. However, survey results point
to stagnant or declining levels of adoption and development of
IPM programs. Many IPM programs remain sorely underdeveloped.
Should the currently voluntary school IPM program be mandated?
Recommended amendments : The Committee may wish to consider
amendments to, instead of creating the new school pesticide use
reduction program described in the bill, mandate currently
voluntary IPM programs at schools. In addition, the Committee
may wish to consider amendments to focus the fee only on
pesticides that are reported to be used at schools.
Prior related legislation:
AB 1006 (Chu, 2004). Would have banned public schools from
using the "most highly toxic" pesticides on school property. AB
1006 was heard in the then Senate Agriculture and Water
Resources Committee but a vote was never taken.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support:
Parents for a Safer Environment (sponsor)
American Lung Association
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
Breathe California
California Church Impact
California Nurses Association
California School Employees Association
California School Health Centers Association
California State PTA
Chinese-American Political Association
Clean Water Action California
Coalition For Clean Air
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Democratic Central Committee
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Environmental Working Group
Momas, Mothers of Marin Against the Spray
SB 1157
Page 10
National Nurses Organizing Committee
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility-- San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sierra Club California
Opposition:
Department of Pesticide Regulation
Pest Control Operators of California
ServiceMaster
Western Plant Health Association
Analysis Prepared by : Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916)
319-3965