BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Carol Liu, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1405
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
INTRODUCED: February 21, 2014
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: April 2, 2014
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Lynn Lorber
NOTE : This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Environmental Quality. A "do pass" motion should
include referral to the Committee on Environmental Quality.
SUBJECT : Pesticides and integrated pest management.
SUMMARY
This bill requires any school that uses a pesticide other than
a self-contained trap, gel or paste crevice treatment or
anti-microbial pesticides to develop an integrated pest
management plan and requires any person who applies pesticides
at a schoolsite to annually complete a training course that
includes safe pesticide use and integrated pest management.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Education Code, which among other things:
1) Provides that it is the policy of the State that effective
least toxic pest management practices should be the
preferred method of managing pests at schoolsites, and
that the State shall take the necessary steps to
facilitate the adoption of effective least toxic pest
management practices at schools.
2) 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.
3) Requires schools to provide written notification at least
72 hours prior to any application of pesticides that was
not included in the annual notification.
SB 1405
Page 2
4) Requires schools to provide the opportunity for parents
and staff to register to receive notification at least 72
hours prior to individual pesticide applications.
5) Requires schools to post a warning sign at each area of
the schoolsite where pesticides will be applied.
6) Requires schools to keep records for four years of all
pesticides used at the schoolsite.
7) Prohibits the use of a pesticide that has been granted
conditional registration, an interim registration or an
experimental use permit.
8) Exempts agriculture vocational programs if the activity is
necessary to meet curriculum requirements.
9) Defines "schoolsite" as any facility used for K-12 school
purposes or for child care (including day care centers,
employer- sponsored child care centers, but excludes
family day care homes). The term includes the buildings
or structures, playgrounds, athletic fields, vehicles, or
any other area of property visited or used by students.
"Schoolsite" does not include any postsecondary
educational facility attended by secondary pupils or
private K-12 facilities.
(Education Code � 17608- 17613)
Current law also establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Food and Agriculture Code which among other things:
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Requires DPR to establish an integrated pest management
SB 1405
Page 3
training program to facilitate the adoption of a model
integrated pest management program and least-hazardous
pest control practices by schools.
4) 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.
5) Defines "integrated pest management," applicable to
schools and child care 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. This definition further
states that 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.
(Food & Agriculture Code � 13180-13188)
The Healthy Schools Act exempts from recordkeeping and
notification requirements pesticide products deployed in the
form of a self-contained bait or trap, a gel or paste deployed
as a crack and crevice treatment, anti-microbial pesticides
(including sanitizers and disinfectants), and pesticides exempt
from regulation by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency. (EC � 17610.5)
ANALYSIS
This bill requires any school that uses a pesticide other than
a self-contained trap, gel or paste crevice treatment or
anti-microbial pesticides to develop an integrated pest
management plan and requires any person who applies pesticides
at a schoolsite to annually complete a training course that
includes safe pesticide use and integrated pest management.
Specifically, this bill:
Integrated pest management
1) Requires the school designee to develop and post on the
SB 1405
Page 4
school's website an integrated pest management (IPM) plan
for the school or school district, if the school chooses
to use a pesticide other than those described below. This
bill requires the IPM plan to include the name of the
school designee or IPM coordinator and include the
pesticides applied by school employees and licensed pest
control applicators. This bill requires the IPM plan to
be included in existing notification if the school does
not have a website.
2) Authorizes the use of the following pesticides without an
IPM plan:
a) A pesticide product deployed in the
form of a self-contained bait or trap.
b) Gel or paste deployed as a crack and
crevice treatment.
c) Any pesticide exempted from regulation
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
d) Anti-microbial pesticides, including
sanitizers and disinfectants.
3) Specifically authorizes schools (that use only pesticides
listed above) to develop and post on the school's website
an IPM plan, include the plan with existing annual
notification, and requires the IPM plan to include the
name of the school designee or IPM coordinator and the
pesticides applied at the school by employees and licensed
pest control applicators.
4) Defines "integrated pest management plan" in the Education
Code as a written plan based on a template provided or
approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation that
outlines a strategy for integrated pest management, as
currently described in the Food & Agriculture Code (see
Background).
5) Defines "IPM coordinator" in the Food & Agriculture Code
as having the same meaning as "school designee" in the
Education Code, which is the individual identified by a
schoolsite or school district to carry out the
requirements of the Healthy Schools Act.
Training
SB 1405
Page 5
1) Requires a person, including a licensed pest control
applicator, who intends to apply a pesticide at a
schoolsite to annually complete a training course provided
by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) or an
agent authorized by DPR.
2) Requires DPR to develop a training program for any person
who intends to apply pesticides on a schoolsite. This
bill requires the training to cover safe pesticide use and
integrated pest management, and authorizes the training to
be developed as a web-based training provided through a
third-party.
Reporting
1) Requires, if a school chooses to use a pesticide other
than those described below, the school designee to submit,
at least annually, to the Director of Pesticide Regulation
a copy of the records of all pesticides used at the school
during the school year. This bill requires the records to
include copies of the currently-required warning signs and
all of the following:
a) The name of a contact person for the schoolsite.
b) The name and address of the school, or the
department code or licensed child care facility
number indicating if the site is an elementary or
secondary school, or a child care facility.
c) The product name, manufacturer's name, the
federal Environmental Protection Agency's product
registration number and the amount used, including
the unit of measurement.
d) The date and areas of application and the
targeted pest.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Who is affected ? This bill affects the use of pesticides
at schoolsites, defined within the Healthy Schools Act to
mean any facility used for child care (including day care
centers, employer- sponsored child care centers, but
excludes family day care homes), or for K-12 school
SB 1405
Page 6
purposes. The term includes the buildings or structures,
playgrounds, athletic fields, vehicles, or any other area
of property visited or used by students.
"Schoolsite" does not include any postsecondary
educational facility attended by secondary pupils or
private K-12 facilities.
2) Existing programs and support . The Department of
Pesticide Regulation's (DPR) School Integrated Pest
Management (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, including a model IPM program guidebook and
information relative to training.
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/schoolipm/
According to DPR's website, approximately 80% of school
districts have sent at least one representative to a
DPR-sponsored full day IPM workshop to receive training in
structural and landscape IPM.
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/schoolipm/training/trained_district
s.pdf
The most recent regarding IPM in schools was in 2010, conducted
by DPR. The survey found that 68% of respondents
indicated the school district had adopted an IPM program.
This survey also found that overall, 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.
http://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/schoolipm/overview/sipm_survey2010.
pdf
The Senate Environmental Quality Committee analysis of prior
legislation questioned if the Legislature should require
"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 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
SB 1405
Page 7
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."
3) Training . This bill requires a person, including a
licensed pest control applicator, who intends to apply a
pesticide at a schoolsite to annually complete a training
course provided by the Department of Pesticide Regulation
(DPR) or an agent authorized by DPR. This bill also adds
a requirement in the Food & Agriculture Code that DPR
develop a training program for any person who intends to
apply pesticides on a schoolsite.
Is it reasonable to require a licensed pest control applicator
to annually complete training pursuant to this bill, in
addition to any existing requirements for licensure by
DPR? Is it clear that training is required prior to the
application of a pesticide other than those exempt from
this bill? Is the training required by this bill
different than existing training offered or approved by
DPR that schools may be using currently?
This bill requires the training to cover safe pesticide use and
integrated pest management, and authorizes the training to
be developed as a web-based training provided through a
third-party. Staff recommends amendments to strike
reference to a third-party and instead specify that the
training is to be provided by DPR or an agent authorized
by DPR, as proposed by this bill in Education Code � 17614
and Food & Agriculture Code � 13186.5.
4) Reporting . This bill requires schools that use a
pesticide other than self-contained traps and crevice
treatments to submit, at least annually, to the DPR
detailed records of all pesticides used at the school
during the school year. Current law requires schools to
keep records of all pesticide use for a period of four
years, and authorizes schools to meet this requirement by
keeping a copy of the warning sign for each application
and the amount of the pesticide used. This bill expands
SB 1405
Page 8
reporting by requiring the information to be reported to
the DPR and include, in addition to the warning signs, the
name of the school contact, the name and address of the
school (or code indicating if the site is an elementary or
secondary school, or a child care facility), the product
and manufacturer's name, the federal Environmental
Protection Agency's product registration number, the
amount of the pesticide used (including the unit of
measurement), and the date and areas of application and
the targeted pest.
5) Unintended consequences ? According to Legislative
Counsel, no reimbursement is required by this bill because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or
school district will be incurred because the provisions of
this bill amend a division in the Food & Agriculture Code
that provides that every person who violates any provision
of the division (relating to pesticides) is guilty of a
misdemeanor. Staff recommends an amendment to exempt from
criminal charges school designees who do not meet the
requirements specific to this bill.
Could this bill, which essentially requires implementation of
an IPM plan, training and reporting, restrict the ability
of schools to use pesticides determined to be necessary to
ensure that students and school staff are protected from
pests that may spread disease?
6) 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
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) was similar to SB 394 when passed by
this Committee in April 2010, on a 6-2 vote. In its final
form, SB 1157 would have required the adoption of an IPM
program by all schools and required the DPR to reimburse
school districts for the costs of IPM training. SB 1157
was vetoed by the Governor, whose veto message read:
This bill requires all school sites in California to adopt an
SB 1405
Page 9
integrated pest management (IPM) program and requires the
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to reimburse all
local agencies and school districts for the costs of this
program.
While currently voluntary in state law, I support the policy of
implementing integrated pest management programs at
schools to the greatest extent possible. Unfortunately, I
cannot support paying for this school program out of an
alternative fund at DPR. To do so would start a dangerous
precedent for finding unrelated revenue sources to fund,
expand, or create K-12 programs outside of the Proposition
98 guarantee.
SUPPORT
California Federation of Teachers
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center for Environmental Health
OPPOSITION
Coalition for Adequate School Housing