BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 394
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator S. Joseph Simitian, Chairman
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 394
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
AMENDED: April 14, 2011
FISCAL: Yes HEARING
DATE:May 2, 2011
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 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 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 394
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 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 (including
sanitizers and disinfectants).
2)Prohibit use of a pesticide on a schoolsite if that
pesticide contains an ingredient known to the state to cause
cancer or reproductive toxicity, as specified, or any one of
specified cholinesterase-inhibiting as specified with
certain exceptions.
3)Requires all schoolsites, as defined and except as
specified, to send at least one person to one DPR training
at least once every three years. Because this provision
would impose additional duties on local public employees,
the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
4)Provides that a person from a single school district to
attend the training on behalf of multiple schoolsites within
that school district.
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of Bill . According to the author, "Children are
more vulnerable to environmental hazards than adults and
require special protection. Children confront greater
exposures to environmental contaminants in air, water and
food than do adults on a per weight basis. In addition,
children are often more susceptible to toxins due to the
SB 394
Page 3
vulnerability of growing organs and systems. And, since
children typically spend six to eight hours a day in school,
standards need to take into account these prolonged
exposures. The National Academy of Sciences reports that
children are more susceptible to chemicals than adults and
estimates that 50 percent of lifetime pesticide exposure
occurs during the first five years of life. It's not
surprising that children ages 6-11 nationwide have
significantly higher levels of pesticide residues in their
bodies than all other age categories."
The author states that unfortunately, highly toxic
pesticides are still occasionally being used in and around
California schools and incidents of toxic pesticide exposure
in schools go unreported. These include pesticides that
cause cancer, are linked to reproductive harm or are toxic
to the nervous system, in addition to other pesticides that
cause other health and environmental problems.
The author argues that SB 394 seeks to eliminate children's
exposure to the most highly toxic pesticides and outmoded
forms of application and have public schools and child day
care facilities participate in critical DPR training on
least-toxic pest management practices. SB 394 seeks to
ensure that IPM is put into place by requiring school
districts have the training and support to get rid of pests
without creating more harm than good. According to the
author this bill is a small, but necessary next step to the
original Healthy Schools Act of 2000, by ensuring that
school staff are trained in green pest management practices
that ultimately result in cost savings for schools.
2)What is IPM? According to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Integrated Pest Management (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.
SB 394
Page 4
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 integrated pest management practices.
DPR's School IPM program promotes voluntary adoption of IPM
in public schools primarily by training, outreach, and
assistance with the Healthy Schools Act implementation. In
addition, DPR has established a comprehensive school IPM
website and developed a variety of technical resources for
schools.
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 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
the Healthy Schools Act 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
reported 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.
In February 2010, DPR reported that their training program
had reached nearly three-quarters of the State's 1,000+
SB 394
Page 5
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 . In 1994, the
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) was honored with
one of DPR's first IPM Innovator Awards. The 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 school districts 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, 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
SB 394
Page 6
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 support . Supporters state that under current
law, DPR is directed to support schools in implementing IPM,
which focuses on using the least toxic alternatives to
pesticides. The supporters argue however, this program is
voluntary, and in 2009 alone, California schools reported
over 27,000 professional applications of pesticides on
school property. According to another DPR survey, 40% of
school districts continue to use high-exposure methods for
SB 394
Page 7
treating weed problems, while only 60% are using
low-exposure baits for ant management - two of the most
common pest problems.
According to supporters, exposure to pesticides can have
irreversible detrimental effects on children. According to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency, adverse
effects of pesticide exposure can range "from mild symptoms
of dizziness and nausea to serious, long-term neurological,
developmental and reproductive disorders." Supporters
further state that children are particularly vulnerable
since they are at a critical period of human development
when exposure to a toxin can permanently alter the way an
individual's biological system operates.
Supporters feel that, in a majority of cases, IPM techniques
have already proven not only to be less hazardous to human
health but also more effective and less costly than
conventional pesticide approaches to pest management.
Supporters argue that the passage of SB 394 will ensure that
all California public school children are protected by
effective and IPM practices.
6)Arguments in opposition . The opposition argues that when
used in conjunction with proper cleaning techniques,
pesticides serve as a safe and proven means of preventing
and eliminating pest infestations. The opposition further
states that the appropriate use of pesticide products to
remedy emergency situations in schools, (e.g. the use of
wasp or hornet spray) can protect children's health.
Additionally, opponents state that antimicrobial products,
such as disinfectants and sanitizers are used in a variety
of educational settings and provide many important health
protection benefits by limiting the spread of diseases such
as MRSA, Norovirus and the flu, as well as controlling the
spread of bacteria like E. coli, Shigella and Salmonella.
7)Is this too prescriptive, putting public health at risk?
Section 3 of this bill bans 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 (including sanitizers and disinfectants).
SB 394
Page 8
Section 4 of the bill prohibits any pesticide that contains
an ingredient listed on the proposition 65 list and any
pesticide that contains cholinesterase-inhibiting
ingredients with exceptions from these bans for
disinfectants and sanitizers, agricultural curriculum,
agricultural uses and the authorities of state and local
pest management agencies. However, as the bill is drafted,
these exceptions only apply to section 4, therefore, if
there is a need to use a disinfectant or sanitizer, an
agricultural pesticide or for a governmental health agency
to address a mosquito, wasp or other infestation they would
still be bound by section 3 only allowing use of a gel or
paste deployed as crack and crevice treatment, a
self-contained bait or spot treatment. As drafted, this
bill will prevent pesticides from being used that are
necessary for controlling public health risks from pathogens
like E. coli, infestations of mosquitoes, wasps, termites
and rats. By curbing one risk this bill is creating
another.
8)What is the problem that we are trying to fix? Based on the
author's statement on this legislation, it appears that the
author believes that IPM is working in California schools
and that it should be implemented more fully across
California schools. This bill requires IPM training for
every school district and many daycares in the state. But
by going a step beyond that and prescriptively banning
classes of chemicals, the bill contradicts the principal of
IPM. IPM is meant to provide a process by which prevention
and non-chemical controls are employed first, but allows for
the judicious use of pesticides as necessary. Pesticides
are toxic and many contain Proposition 65 listed
ingredients. However, used judiciously and only when
necessary and in a way that does not expose students,
faculty and staff to the chemical (as prescribed in IPM
programs), it may be necessary to address serious public
health risks like wasps, bees, cockroaches, mosquitoes,
spiders and others. While it may be worthwhile to ban
certain types of the most toxic chemicals on schoolsites,
this bill bans entire classes not based on potential toxic
exposures, but rather on toxic characteristics. It is more
appropriate to look at specific, potential exposures and
evaluate a pesticides use on schoolsites based on that
SB 394
Page 9
information.
The committee may wish to take another approach by requiring
the Departments of Pesticide Regulation and Education to
work together to develop a comprehensive survey to
determine: a) how many school districts and daycares are
implementing IPM in their districts; b) how successful
programs, like LAUSD's, were built; c) how to duplicate that
success, d) what are the current impediments of the
voluntary IPM program for districts; e) what would be done
to help districts more thoroughly implement IPM in their
schools and f) report back to the Legislature on potential
solutions to increase IPM participation in schools and
daycares. The last survey was conducted in 2007 and did not
look comprehensively at how well IPM was working in
California or at the impediments districts are experiencing
in attempting to implement current law. This first step
could advise the Legislature in how to best address
pesticide exposure in schools.
9)Prior and related legislation . SB 1157 (DeSaulnier) of
2010, which was vetoed, would have required, commencing on
January 1, 2014, all schoolsites to adopt an IPM program and
would have increased the mill assessment fee on pesticide
sales to cover costs associated with the new mandate.
AB 821 (Brownley) of 2009 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 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.
SOURCE : Pesticide Watch
SUPPORT : American Lung Association
SB 394
Page 10
Asian Pacific Environmental Network
Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Promoting Advocacy
and Leadership (AYPAL)
Breast Cancer Action
Breast Cancer Fund
California Church IMPACT
California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)
California National Organization for Women
California Nurses Association
California Pan-Ethnic Health Network
California School Health Centers Association
California Teachers Association
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
(CHANGE)
Californians for Pesticide Reform
Carmean Pest Management
Center for Environmental Health
Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment
Clean Water Action
Comite Civico Del Valle
Communi-tea.Org
Coalition for Clean Air
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Fresno's Alternative to Pesticides FresCAMP
Fresno Metro Ministry
Latinos United for Clean Air (LUCA)
Lideres Campesinas, Inc.
National Nurses Organizing Committee
Mothers of Marin Against the Spray
Natural Resources Defense Council
Parents for a Safer Environment
Pesticide Action Network
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los
Angeles, Sacramento, & San Francisco
Regional Asthma Management and Prevention
San Francisco Baykeeper
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Sierra Club
3 individuals
SB 394
Page 11
OPPOSITION : California Chamber of Commerce
California Park and Recreation Society
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Clorox Company
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of
California
Pest Control Operators of California
Western Plant Health Association